When we speak with senior individuals within businesses around whether they’re aware of social media auditors and what they do, it’s an issue that quite a large proportion either simply aren’t aware of at all, or think that it’s not of great relevance to them.
The exception seems to be the growing number of organisations who’ve already been targeted by such individuals and who have then paid the price for not taking some simple steps in order to be prepared.
If the concept isn’t one you’re currently familiar with, an ‘auditor’ is an individual who attends a business/industrial site (or similar), stands outside the gates and films the activities going on within, including sometimes with use of a drone.
To the majority of us, this may well sound like a completely bizarre thing to do. However, whilst outwardly framed as being done with noble purpose, the reality is that the intent is often more sinister. Handling such individuals the wrong way can have very public and embarrassing repercussions for the businesses, and individual employees, that have been targeted.
So why on earth would someone turn up to a business and start filming what’s happening on the site? The first thing to be clear on is that these individuals are not ‘auditors’ in the sense that we would normally use the term here in the UK. They have absolutely no official investigative or regulatory powers. Rather, they are acting on their own account supposedly for the public good.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it’s a trend that appears to have largely originated in America with individuals claiming to be undertaking ‘first amendment audits’ to test constitutional rights, in particular the right to photograph and video record in a public space with a view to seeking to ‘educate’ the public by posting the result. The idea is, if they are challenged by anyone from the organisation they are filming, or if the police are summoned and try to stop them, then that results in a ‘failed’ audit.
Whilst some of these individuals may genuinely be driven by a passion to educate the public on their legal rights, it would appear that that the true motivation for many more is financial in nature through sponsorship and advertising revenue derived from the videos that are posted online. Estimates vary, however it’s suggested that an individual can potentially make on average between £2.50 and £4.10 per 1,000 views through advertisement.
‘DJ Audits’, one of Britain's leading YouTube ‘auditors’ has around 184k subscribers to its YouTube channel and averages tens of thousands of views per video, and in some cases over a million views. It’s a practice that therefore has the scope to be financially lucrative provided that the videos that are posted are well watched. In many respects this is where the problem lies - a ‘boring’ video where nothing happens won’t attract many views, whereas if it contains a very heated, dramatic and confrontational exchange then it will.
These ‘auditors’ will often therefore seek to actively trigger an adverse/confrontational reaction, usually from an employee of the organisation or with any attending police, which will gain a large number of viewers when the video of the exchange is subsequently uploaded onto a social media platform.
Generally, these ‘auditors’ obtain their footage whilst stood on public property. As a result, they are legally within their rights to film the site and anyone on it. They do not need consent to do so, either from the private landowner, or from any individuals they are filming. This is the case even if they are filming private land whilst stood on public land.
An individual’s consent is not required if they are being filmed by someone stood on public property regardless of whether the individual who is being filmed is on public or private property. In real terms therefore, workers should be aware that they have virtually no expectation of privacy while at work where they can be seen from a public place.
In addition to this, the police don’t have the power to stop individuals filming or photographing. However there are very limited circumstances, for example if linked to suspected terrorist activity.
The legal position is different if the ‘auditor’ enters private property, for example, they enter a retail store or a café. If this is the case, they can legitimately be asked to stop filming and can be asked to leave. If they refuse to do so, they are committing trespass.
Social media auditors seek to take advantage of the fact that the ‘auditor’ is well-versed with the legal position concerning their right to film, in circumstances where representatives of the company seeking to challenge them are, understandably, not as well informed.
It’s imperative therefore to have a policy in place to educate and prepare workers in the event that they come into contact with an ‘auditor’. Such a policy would inform workers of the correct legal position around filming on site and provide guidance on how the employer expects staff to conduct themselves when faced with an ‘auditor’, ie essentially to try and avoid a heated exchange which will end up on social media platforms.
If you are an employer that is concerned about the growing trend of social media auditing in the UK, get in touch with Ashfords’ employment team who will be happy to assist you.
We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.
Sign up
