A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Twitter’s Verification Controversy: Legal Perspective from Todd Friedman

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

In the wake of the recent controversy surrounding Twitter’s blue check mark verification system and the Twitter Blue subscription service, renowned attorney Todd Friedman was recently asked by the LA Times to weigh in on this unfolding situation.

Twitter, under the leadership of its new owner Elon Musk, has been scrutinized for offering high-profile users like LeBron James and Stephen King free Twitter Blue subscriptions, allowing them to retain their blue check marks without payment. This has sparked a debate about the possible violation of the FTC Act and the Lanham Act.

Friedman, a notable consumer rights advocate, provides a different perspective. He likens Musk’s actions to a store manager giving freebies to his friends. Friedman says it’s not necessarily a violation of consumer rights: the check mark indicates that the user is subscribed to Twitter Blue, not that they paid for it.

Friedman’s interpretation of this language brings a fresh viewpoint to the discussion, emphasizing that the nuance of the term “subscribed” does not necessarily imply “paid.” His take underscores the complexity lying at the intersection of technology, law, and ethics in the digital age. As the situation at Twitter continues to unfold, his insights will provide much-needed clarity for those of us who want to know more about the potential legal implications involved.

About Todd Friedman

Todd Friedman is a respected attorney specializing in consumer rights. His firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, false advertising, misrepresentation, and consumer protection issues. Friedman’s expertise and knowledge have provided tremendous value to his clients in matters related to technology and consumer rights.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.