N.J. subpoenas JuicyCampus

The Consumer Fraud Act is a civil act that “deals with non-disclosures or erroneous information in terms of a commercial transaction,” said Bill Potter ’68, a partner at the Princeton-based law firm Potter & Dickson. A violation of the Consumer Fraud Act warrants a civil penalty of up to $10,000, and subsequent violations carry a penalty of $20,000.

“What we’re seeking is factual information about the operation of the website and how it honors its representation,” said Jeff Lamm, a spokesman for the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs.

“We are currently not commenting on this matter,” said Brianne Pins, account supervisor for 5W Public Relations, JuicyCampus’ public relations firm.

There are several questions that the attorney general’s office wants addressed, Lamm noted. “[JuicyCampus] say[s] that if there’s something egregious, someone can file a complaint,” Lamm said. “When we went to the site, we don’t see that.”

JuicyCampus’ terms and conditions outlaw posting content that “is unlawful, threatening, abusive, tortious, defamatory, obscene, libelous, or invasive of another’s privacy,” according to the site.

Lamm noted, however, that the website includes “no mechanism for complaints to be reported.”

The site additionally forbids users younger than 18 to participate without a signed parental consent form, but the attorney general’s office questioned whether this is strictly enforced.

Milgram also asked in the subpoena to explain how it confirms the university affiliations of people who are posting and how the website chooses its “supported campuses.”

In addition to the subpoena of Lime Blue, the owner of JuicyCampus, Milgram subpoenaed AdBrite, a company that advertises on the site, and Google, which only stopped advertising on JuicyCampus in February.

“JuicyCampus was in violation of our terms of service,” Daniel Rubin, a spokeman for Google, told The Chronicle for Higher Education last week. This violation prompted Google to discontinue advertising on JuicyCampus.

“I would guess ... they’re trying to find a way to stop what they think is bad practice by appealing to values that aren’t first amendment values,” Wilson School professor Stanley Katz said.

“This goes beyond free speech because Juicy Campus isn’t enforcing its user agreement,” Julian Smisek ’09, president of the Princeton chapter of Amnesty International, said in an e-mail.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

“I fail to see where there’s fraud in the free exchange of information on a website,” Potter noted. He added that a successful prosecution “could have a chilling effect on the free exchange of information.”

Juicy on campus

Princeton is the only “supported campus” in New Jersey, and according to the website of The Press of Atlantic City, Milgram said the complaint originated from a Princeton student whose name and address were posted on the site. It is against JuicyCampus’ Terms and Conditions to post private information, including addresses.

Lamm refused to confirm the identity of the complainant but noted only that he or she was a New Jersey student or resident. “We’re aware of students who basically are maintaining that they are being victimized,” he added.

Princeton’s JuicyCampus website is viewed more than that of any other Ivy League school besides Cornell. According to the March 7 Yale Daily News, Marichal Gentry, the dean of student affairs at Yale, has consulted general counsel as to the possibility of banning JuicyCampus at Yale and imposing punishments on those who log in.

Despite JuicyCampus’ popularity at Princeton, student responses to Milgram’s actions have been generally positive, though some doubt the effectiveness of the legal action.

“While I believe in the constitutional amendment of free speech, I realize the negative effect of JuicyCampus and the atmosphere it harbors and fully support the actions of the attorney general,” T. J. Klein ’09 said.

Shawn Cruz ’10 was in favor of the subpoenas, but noted, “It seems like they are trying to find any law possible to take away JuicyCampus.”

Connor Diemand-Yauman, Class of 2010 president, previously called for a boycott of JuicyCampus and is collaborating with Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Thomas Dunne and the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students to organize a campaign against anonymous statements.

“I think it’s a step in the right direction,” Diemand-Yauman said. “It’s comforting to know that certain online standards are being upheld.” The bigger problem, he added, is the willingness of Princeton students to participate in a website where students “anonymously and cowardly [post] information about their classmates.”

“One of the reasons that it’s particularly problematic is that this site is targeting institutions where we are encouraged to lay claim to our thoughts,” Diemand-Yauman said. “They are using college campuses for an organizing platform when it is absolutely antithetical to the role that colleges play.”