Can social media evidence be used in court? In short, yes. But it's not always so straightforward.
Social media evidence being used more frequently in court cases is forcing us to rethink online responsibility. More than ever, digital footprints left behind on platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) are being scoured for use as crucial digital evidence.
For legal professionals, social media evidence has become a powerful tool in proving alibis, exposing deception, and detecting fraud. From incriminating posts to location data embedded in images, investigators increasingly rely on social media intelligence (SOCMINT) to uncover key details that can make or break a case.
While there are many examples of digital evidence in court cases, the evidence-gathering and authentication process isn’t always straightforward. The chain of custody for digital evidence can be incredibly difficult to prove, creating potential for legal challenges. And, the ease with which content can be manipulated and shared raises serious concerns about the reliability and admissibility of social media evidence.
Despite these challenges, social media evidence is being used in court cases more and more, demonstrating that digital footprints can serve as compelling legal proof. To illustrate these complexities, we will examine twenty-three specific cases where social media evidence has played a pivotal role, revealing both the power and pitfalls of using social media evidence in court.
11 Court Cases Where Social Media Evidence Has Played a Decisive Role
Social media evidence has shaped numerous legal outcomes, influencing criminal investigations, fraud cases, and civil disputes. Below are cases involving social media that demonstrate how digital footprints have helped solve crimes and secure convictions.
1. Dishonest Cyclist Exposed by Social Media Activity
This social media case highlights how insurance fraud claims can be debunked through digital forensics. In 2015, a cyclist from Bristol, England, suffered injuries from being knocked off his bicycle while riding to work. After the incident, he claimed that the driver's insurance company, QBE, owed him £60,000 ($74,000 USD) for "pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, medical treatment, and handicap on the open labor market."
However, social media evidence ultimately unraveled his case. In his claim, the cyclist stated that he had sustained severe knee injuries due to the accident. Investigators found that just four weeks before his medical exam, he logged a 10-mile run and a 100-kilometer bike ride on Strava, an app for cyclists and runners. This directly contradicted his claim of severe knee injuries. On the day of his medical evaluation, he had even recorded a 20-kilometer ride.
In this example of digital evidence being used in court, the cyclist's medical experts had to concede that the road collision couldn't have caused the knee injuries in question. In the end, a judge ordered him to pay the insurance company £40,000 ($50,000 USD) to cover legal expenses, all thanks to a thorough social media investigation.
2. Murder Weapon Discovered in Facebook Photo
One of the most well-known social media cases that led to a murder conviction comes from Canada, and involved a Facebook selfie. On March 24, 2015, friends Cheyenne Antoine and Brittney Gargol posted a selfie together before heading out for the night. Hours later, 18-year-old Gargol was found strangled on a deserted road in Saskatchewan.
Investigators noticed a crucial detail—Antoine was wearing a belt in the photo that closely resembled the marks left by the murder weapon. When police matched the belt to the crime scene, Antoine admitted to killing her friend in a fit of rage. She later pleaded guilty to manslaughter, proving that social media evidence can be used in criminal court cases.
3. Capitol Rioter Incriminates Herself in a Criminal Case with Social Media Post
The January 6 Capitol riots led to one of the most widely covered criminal cases involving social media evidence posted from mobile devices. Gracyn Dawn Courtright, a University of Kentucky student, posted incriminating evidence on social media from inside the Capitol during the riots.
In now-deleted social media posts, she wrote, "Can't wait to tell my grandkids I was here," along with, "Infamy is just as good as fame. Either way, I end up more known. XOXO." Federal prosecutors used these posts, along with video footage of her chanting "USA" inside the Capitol, as evidence. The social media evidence helped solidify her conviction of trespassing and civil disorder.
4. Facebook Activity Contradicts Injury Claim
In Terry v. Mullowney & Terry v. Sinclair, the plaintiff claimed that his injuries significantly limited his social life and overall well-being. However, during litigation, he admitted to deactivating his Facebook account to prevent "incriminating information" from being used against him in court.
Despite this, previously available posts showed him frequently partying, traveling, and socializing—contradicting his claims of a restricted lifestyle due to injury. The judge determined that the missing content likely undermined his credibility, reinforcing how attempts to conceal social media activity can backfire in legal proceedings.
5. Digital Evidence from Snapchat Shapes a Criminal Case Involving Mobile Devices
In criminal cases involving mobile devices, disappearing messages can complicate legal proceedings. But in R. v. L.P.., a Canadian sexual assault trial involving a minor, preserved social media evidence on Snapchat helped secure a conviction.
The case involved two high school students with conflicting accounts of their late-night encounter. Since Snapchat messages disappear unless saved, much of their earlier conversation was lost. However, key messages from the night of the assault had been preserved, providing crucial evidence.
Despite Snapchat’s reputation for impermanent content, digital forensics helped build a strong case, ultimately leading to a conviction. This also demonstrates that even so-called "ephemeral" social media posts can still be used as evidence in court if properly preserved.
6. Facebook Posts Expose False Injury Claims
In Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, the plaintiff, Zimmerman, claimed a forklift accident left him permanently injured. However, a social media investigation revealed Facebook and MySpace posts showing him engaging in bike stunts, contradicting his injury claims. Photos also showed him wearing shorts, despite his deposition statement that he never wore them due to an embarrassing scar from the accident. Weis Markets argued that Zimmerman’s private social media accounts could contain further relevant evidence, and the court agreed. He was ordered to provide login credentials and preserve all content.
7. Public Facebook Posts Used as Probable Cause
In United States v. Meregildo, law enforcement leveraged social media to gather evidence against the defendant, Melvin Colon, who was under investigation for gang-related activities. Investigators accessed Colon’s Facebook posts through an informant who had been granted friend-level access to his profile. These posts included references to violence and gang affiliations, which the government used as probable cause to obtain a search warrant.
The court ruled that publicly shared social media posts are not protected under the Fourth Amendment, as users voluntarily expose this content to others. However, private posts with restricted access may still have constitutional protections. This case set an important precedent for how social media evidence can be lawfully obtained and used in criminal investigations.
8. Social Media Privacy Fails to Shield Fraudulent Injury Claims
Privacy settings weren’t enough to shield a fraudulent injury claim in Romano v. Steelcase Inc. The plaintiff, who claimed to be bedridden from workplace injuries, had posted photos of herself smiling and active in various locations. This led to the defense requesting production of evidence from her private Facebook and MySpace content. The court ruled that social media can be used as evidence in court, even if set to private, since the content directly contradicted her claims.
9. Facebook Posts Discredit Car Accident Injury Claim
In Kaiser v. Williams (2015 BCSC 646), the plaintiff alleged severe injuries prevented her from household chores and recreational activities. However, social media evidence showed her wake surfing, dancing, and jumping—contradicting her testimony. The judge admitted the social media evidence, significantly reducing her damages.
10. Court Grants Access to Private Social Media Posts
In Isacov v. Schwartzberg (2018 ONSC 5933), the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident as a pedestrian. The defendant's vehicle ran over her foot. The plaintiff, a professional ballroom dancer, claimed she could no longer continue ballroom dancing because she could no longer where high heels and had other severe, lasting injuries.
The defendant had obtained social media posts of the plaintiff, allegedly wearing high heels and dancing -- and sought disclosure of all of the plaintiffs social media content from three years before the accident to the present.
The plaintiff argued that private social media posts shouldn't be included in the case. The court found that her online images were potentially relevant to assessing her injuries and limitations. The plaintiff’s privacy argument was rejected, as courts have previously ruled that social media users cannot expect complete privacy when sharing content, even on private accounts.
11. Tagged Photos on Social Media Used to Challenge Injury Claim
As is often the case with injury and disability claims, in this case, social media content became central to disproving a claim. The plaintiff in Vasquez-Santos v. Mathew, who had at one point been a semi-professional basketball player, stated that a vehicle accident had left him disabled and incapable of playing basketball. To contradict this statement, opposing counsel provided social media evidence of the plaintiff playing basketball with friends after the incident. Crucially, the plaintiff had not uploaded these images himself but had instead been ‘tagged’ by friends, and he consequently claimed that these were old photos that had been uploaded long after the fact.
To disprove this statement, opposing counsel requested that a third-party investigator be given access to the plaintiff’s social media accounts. The request was denied, but the appellate court eventually reversed the decision. In doing so, it pointed to Patterson v Turner Const. Co., which found that social media evidence is relevant and discoverable if it “contradicts or conflicts with a plaintiff’s alleged restrictions, disabilities, and losses, and other claims.”
These cases demonstrate how social media and court cases are increasingly intertwined, with investigators relying on digital forensics and digital evidence to establish facts. However, in other legal disputes, improperly collected social media evidence has been rejected due to authentication issues, manipulation concerns, or an inability to prove authorship. We'll dive into those cases next.
12 Examples of Social Media Evidence Being Rejected in Court
While social media evidence is frequently used in court cases, not all digital content is admissible. Without proper authentication, courts may dismiss social media case evidence due to concerns about manipulation, a lack of metadata, or an inability to prove authorship. The court cases below highlight the importance of strict forensic protocols to ensure social media can be used as evidence in court.
1. Facebook Conversations Fail Authentication
In the social media case State of Connecticut v. Eleck, the defendant attempted to use Facebook messages to prove that a state witness had lied about having no contact with him. The defense provided printed conversations from Facebook, but the witness claimed her account had been hacked and that she had not authored the messages. The court ultimately ruled that, without digital forensic authentication, there was no way to verify the messages’ legitimacy, rendering the social media evidence inadmissible.
2. Unauthenticated Social Media Profile Deemed Inadmissible
In United States v. Vayner, prosecutors attempted to introduce a printout of a social media profile as evidence against the defendant. However, the court ruled the profile inadmissible because the prosecution failed to prove who created or controlled the page. The court emphasized that “the mere fact that a page with [the defendant’s] name and photograph happened to exist on the Internet at the time of [the investigator’s] testimony does not permit a reasonable conclusion that this page was created by the defendant or on his behalf.”
This ruling reinforced the importance of forensic authentication when presenting social media evidence in court. Without verifying ownership, metadata, or authorship, digital content may be considered unreliable and excluded from legal proceedings.
3. Social Media Evidence Falls Short
In this personal injury social media case, Luck v. Shack (2019 BCSC 1172), the defendants presented social media evidence from the plaintiff’s posts, attempting to discredit her injury claims. The court ultimately gave little weight to the posts, citing precedent from Senger v. Graham, which found that simply participating in physical activities does not disprove injury claims. The ruling reinforced that social media evidence in court cases must be contextualized and properly authenticated to be considered reliable.
4. Social Media Evidence Fails to Discredit Injury Claim
In this digital forensics court case, DeWaard v. Capture the Flag Indoor Limited (2010 ABQB 571), the plaintiff alleged a foot injury severely impacted his active lifestyle. Defense attorneys submitted social media evidence from Facebook, with photos showing him biking, fishing, and rollerblading. However, the judge ruled that social media profiles often present an idealized version of reality and gave more weight to medical records supporting the plaintiff’s claims. Again, this ruling reinforced that social media evidence in court cases must be properly contextualized to be effective.
5. MySpace Photographs Rejected
Photographs from social media must also be authenticated to hold up in court. In the People V. Lenihan murder case, MySpace photographs suggesting gang affiliations were attempted to be used in court to cross-examine witnesses. But without additional evidence to support the photographs and no ability to authenticate them and prove they were not altered or photoshopped, the evidence and cross-examination were completely rejected.
6. Unauthenticated LinkedIn Profile Rejected
In this labor law social media court case, Linscheid v. Natus Medical Inc., a collective action suit was filed against Natus for violations of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. An employee claimed that he was employed by Natus, who failed to compensate him and other similarly situated employees for earned overtime wages, as legally required under the FLSA. This case dealt with screen captures and printouts of a LinkedIn profile attempted to be used as evidence. Finding that the defendant made no effort to authenticate the webpage evidence, the court held that these third-party documents were not admissible under FRE 901.
7. Unauthenticated Facebook Screenshots Rejected
In Moroccanoil v. Marc Anthony Cosmetics, a trademark dispute, the plaintiff attempted to introduce Facebook screenshots as evidence to support their claims. However, the federal court ruled the screenshots inadmissible, stating there was no way to verify whether they were an exact representation of the live Facebook content at the time of capture. Without proper authentication, the court determined that the screenshots lacked evidentiary reliability.
This case underscores the importance of forensic preservation when collecting social media evidence. Unlike static screenshots, forensic archiving tools capture metadata, timestamps, and edit histories, ensuring that digital evidence can be properly authenticated and upheld in court. The ruling serves as a cautionary reminder that courts often dismiss social media content if it cannot be verified as an unaltered, original record.
8. Emails in Prostitution Case Fail to Meet Authentication Standard
In Commonwealth v. Purdy, Duncan Purdy was convicted of deriving support from the earnings of a prostitute and maintaining a house of prostitution through a massage parlor. During the investigation, Purdy's computer at the massage parlor was seized, with 10 email exchanges admitted in evidence, including prostitute/masseuse recruiting emails as well as emails to customers offering illegal services.
However, in later escalations, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that simply presenting digital messages was not enough. The prosecution failed to prove the defendant had authored the messages, reinforcing that digital evidence can be used in court only when proper authentication is established.
9. MySpace Messages Deemed Inadmissible
In Griffin v. State, prosecutors sought to introduce MySpace messages as evidence in a murder trial, arguing that the defendant's girlfriend had used them to threaten witnesses against testifying. However, the prosecution failed to authenticate the messages, leaving the court unable to verify who created them or whether they had been altered.
The court ultimately ruled the messages inadmissible, emphasizing that without proof of authorship or supporting metadata, the digital evidence lacked credibility. This case highlights a critical issue in social media and crime investigations: obtaining digital evidence is not enough—proper forensic authentication is necessary for it to hold up in court.
10. Facebook Screenshot Rejected for Lack of Verification
During the trial of Commonwealth vs. Banas, the State attempted to introduce a screenshot of a Facebook post into evidence. The Massachusetts appellate court ruled that the screenshot alone could not prove anything—without further information or evidence, it was impossible to know whether the Facebook evidence was authentic. In making this ruling, the court adhered to the opinion found in Commonwealth vs. Purdy (discussed above), which stated that “evidence that . . . originates from an e-mail or a social networking Web site such as Facebook or MySpace that bears the defendant’s name is not sufficient alone to authenticate the electronic communication as having been authored or sent by the defendant.”
11. MySpace Photos Require Authentication to Be Used in Trial
In Rene v. State of Texas, the defendant challenged MySpace photos presented as evidence, arguing there was no proof he had posted them or that they were unaltered. While the court ruled against him based on other evidence, it acknowledged that social media images must meet an authentication burden to be admissible.
12. Failure to Prove Intent: Social Media Threats Overturned
In Elonis v. United States, social media posts became the crux of a legal battle over the limits of free speech and the definition of criminal threats. Anthony Elonis was convicted under a federal anti-threat statute for Facebook posts that appeared to threaten his ex-wife, law enforcement, and others. Elonis argued that his posts were artistic expressions inspired by rap lyrics and that he had no actual intent to harm anyone. The trial court used an objective standard—whether a reasonable person would interpret his statements as threats—and sentenced him to 44 months in prison.
On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Elonis, reversing his conviction. The Court held that proving a subjective intent to threaten is necessary under federal law rather than relying solely on how a reasonable person might perceive the statements. This case set an important precedent on how courts evaluate online speech, highlighting the complexities of distinguishing between threats and protected expression in the social media era.
Best Practices for Collecting & Preserving Social Media Evidence for Court Cases
As the cases we’ve discussed demonstrate, courts frequently dismiss social media evidence that lacks proper authentication, metadata, or a verifiable chain of custody. Without solid forensic preservation, digital content can be challenged, rendering it inadmissible. To ensure social media evidence stands up in court, legal teams must follow best practices for collection and authentication.
Key Considerations for Admissible Social Media Evidence
1. Screenshots are not enough
Static screenshots often fail to meet evidentiary standards because they do not contain metadata, proof of authorship, lack context, and can be easily manipulated. As we've explored earlier, courts have dismissed cases where simple screenshots were presented as evidence. Using a tool like web capture tool like WebPreserver to preserve social media evidence with associated metadata ensures content is captured with all relevant data and context intact.
2. Authentication is essential
Courts require proof that social media content is genuine, unaltered, and meets the admissibility standards. Metadata, timestamps, and source URLs should be retained to establish authenticity. Traditional screenshots lack this level of verification, making forensic preservation tools like WebPreserver critical for capturing content with 256-bit digital signatures and timestamps to ensure legal defensibility.
3. Maintain a clear chain of custody
A strong chain of custody is essential for admissibility—legal teams must document when, where, and how digital evidence was collected. Automated tools like WebPreserver provide automated time stamping and digital signatures, making it easier to prove that evidence has not been altered or mishandled.
4. Capture content before it is modified or deleted
Social media posts can be edited or deleted before they are preserved, weakening their value as evidence. Courts often reject content that cannot be verified as the original version. With a tool like WebPreserver, investigators can capture entire timelines, ensuring no crucial evidence is lost before collection.
5. Collect social media evidence ethically and legally
Courts frequently reject social media evidence obtained through deceptive methods, such as fake accounts or unauthorized access. Investigators must adhere to privacy laws and court procedures when collecting social media content. WebPreserver captures publicly available content instantly through a browser-based plugin, ensuring compliance while maintaining forensic integrity.
The Power—and Pitfalls—of Social Media Evidence in Court
These cases demonstrate both the potential and the challenges of using social media as evidence in court. While digital footprints have helped secure convictions, expose fraud, and validate claims, courts have also rejected improperly collected evidence due to authentication failures, missing metadata, or privacy concerns.
Tools like WebPreserver help legal teams capture content before it’s altered or deleted, retain metadata for verification, and ensure an unbroken chain of custody—making digital evidence more defensible. By following best practices and leveraging forensic tools, legal teams can ensure that social media remains a powerful and legally admissible form of evidence.
