"John Doe" has a big, blogging mouth and Target is not happy about it. So unhappy, in fact, the company is trying to track him down to quiet him with a lawsuit.
What's got Target so riled up?
Mr. (if he is a Mr.) Doe has published details of Target's anti-theft procedures online. The information, which is available to company employees on a "need to know" basis, provides procedure on how workers should go about securing merchandise from shoplifters.
Target's lawsuit claims the postings have already led to losses and provide "potential wrongdoers with a blueprint for circumventing Target's security procedures."
The Atlanta Business Chronicle obtained the information at targetunion.org. According to the publication, the online posting details company rules, such as prosecuting anyone accused of stealing $20 or more in merchandise. It also says no one should be allowed to photograph employees who have been caught shoplifting.
The company believes Mr./Ms. Doe obtained its policy and procedure document from a former theft prevention employee for Target living in Wisconsin. The ex-employee, who posted the information in July on targetunion.org, is alleged to have emailed Target's policy to Mr./Ms. Doe who in turn added it to a number of forums.
Target contacted the former employee and demanded he delete the posting from the site as well as remove the information from his computer. He reportedly obliged, but Mr./Ms. Doe continued to post the message on anti-Target sites.
The retailer has attempted to contact John Doe through a number of email accounts and has gone so far as to post its own messages demanding the company's information be removed from public view.
Mr./Ms. Doe has responded to Target's postings under screen names such as "Target Sucks." In one alleged response, he/she reportedly wrote: "I didn't sign any confidentiality agreement with them and really don't give a ****** if they like it or not."
Target has also requested the help of AOL, Yahoo! and Microsoft in tracking down Mr. Doe. There are no public indications at this point that any of the companies have followed through on the retailer's request.
Should the retailer succeed in tracking down Mr./Ms. Doe, it still has its work cut out for it, especially if he/she refuses to remove postings.
According to David Bodney, a First Amendment and media rights lawyer with Steptoe & Johnson, the court would need to determine if Mr./Ms. Doe knew the information was confidential when first posting it. Target would also need to prove the postings had no purpose other than making the retailer look bad.
Target is not the first company to go down this path. Eugene Volokh, a University of California law professor who specializes in free speech issues, compared the case to others involving Apple Computer and Ford.
Apple has had "mixed luck" going after individuals who have leaked information about the company's products before it was ready to go public.
Ford lost a lawsuit in 1999 against a blogger who posted corporate documents pointing out negative information about the cars the company makes.
Discussion Question: What warnings/lessons do the "Target versus John Doe" case hold for retail companies and others in the industry?