UPDATE: Whose Account Is It Still?

Two weeks ago, I discussed the California case of PhoneDog v. Kravitz, where an employee, who used a company Twitter account as part of his job duties, left the company and continued to use the same Twitter account and tweet to the same followers.    The (former) employee claimed that he had the right to continue tweeting, and PhoneDog responded that he was barking up the wrong tree (best I could do at the moment).  As I mentioned in my last post, the court had denied the employee's attempt to dismiss the entire case at inception, and allowed the company to amend its complaint to provide more specificity on some of its claims.   Time for an update.

Since that decision, PhoneDog amended its complaint to re-allege claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.    Then, the employee filed another request to dismiss those two claims, demonstrating that he was up for a dog fight