Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, 603 U.S. 707 (2024):  In describing social media platforms, Justice Kagan wrote for the majority, "The novel services they offer make our lives better, and make them worse—create unparalleled opportunities and unprecedented dangers. Therefore, With the U.S. Supreme Court now acknowledging the dangers of social media—and given the widespread media coverage of employee-related social media harm, along with internal disciplinary records—employers can no longer claim ignorance. It’s clear that social media is a high-risk platform, and failure to provide in-depth training and updated policies puts organizations at serious legal and financial risk.

Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187, and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 601 U.S. 205, 2024: This case introduced a new legal threshold regarding when a public official could be sued individually for behavior on their personal social media account. Given that employers knew or should have known most employees use personal devices and accounts for work-related tasks, this case—along with other recent rulings expanding liability beyond the physical workplace—clearly supports the need for mandatory social media liability training for all employees.

Okonowsky v. Garland 109 F. 4th 1166 (9th Cir. 2024): The Ninth Circuit issued a significant federal ruling that found an employer could be liable for employee off-duty posts on personal accounts that create a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Given that employers knew or should have known most employees use personal devices and accounts for work-related tasks, this case—along with other recent rulings expanding liability beyond the physical workplace—clearly supports the need for mandatory social media liability training for all employees.

Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017): Social media is the new modern square. You knew or should have known that unmonitored employees use personal social media, texts, email, and other digital platforms for work related tasks. Therefore, the need more in-depth social media liability training is obvious.

City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris 489 U.S. 378 (1989):  In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that high liability issues demand more in-depth training, not just written policies. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that social media is a "high liability" issue, the need for more or obvious training is obvious.

Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997): Deliberate indifference is defined as knowingly disregarding a substantial risk of harm. Applying this case law to today's recognition that social media is a "high liability" issue, an employer shows "deliberate indifference" to ignore the obvious need for all employees to receive expert social media liability training.

Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S.51 (2011): Municipalities exposed to liability when need for training is so obvious. If you have a social media policy, that means you knew social media was a workplace safety issue and there was an obvious need for outside expert social media liability training for all employees, not just the PIO or social media manager.

42 U.S.C. 1983: This statute is uses as the gateway for people to sue you in your individual capacity. You knew or should have known that employees could be sued personally for social media mistakes. These lawsuits can destroy their career and threaten personal assets.

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998: Employee training is a critical component of any affirmative defense to harassment claims. When applied to social media, the message is clear: employers knew or should have known that social media presents a high-liability workplace safety issue. Policies alone are insufficient—comprehensive, expert-led training for all employees is now an obvious and necessary standard.

Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526, 536 (1999),  The Court clarified that an employer can be held liable for punitive damages if an employee acted with malice or reckless indifference to the employee's federally protected rights. Courts rule most social media cases as "intentional and malicious" conduct which precludes insurance coverage and bankruptcy protection.