When Email or Social Media Service Might Be Allowed in New York

Email or Social Media Service of legal papers is no longer a futuristic idea — it’s a recognized and, in some cases, court-approved method of ensuring due process when traditional service methods fail. As communication increasingly moves online, New York courts have acknowledged that defendants and respondents often maintain their most reliable contact through digital channels. When a person cannot be located for personal or substituted service, CPLR §308(5)empowers the court to authorize email or social media service as a viable alternative. This shift reflects a growing balance between legal precision and technological practicality.

At Undisputed Legal, we specialize in navigating the procedural complexities involved in securing court approval for email or social media service in New York. Our licensed process servers meticulously document prior service attempts, verify digital account activity, and provide courts with the evidence required to establish reliability and compliance. This ensures that service not only meets statutory standards but also withstands judicial scrutiny—allowing your case to proceed efficiently and lawfully.

PROCESS SERVICE PRICING & OPTIONS

We serve all papers in all 50 states. Fees are automatically calculated at checkout based on the service address.

ROUTINE — $100–$150 (First attempt within 3–7 business days)
RUSH — $200–$250 (First attempt within 24–48 business hours)
SAME-DAY — $250–$300 (First attempt the same business day when documents are received during normal business hours)
EMAIL/MAIL — $75 (Where permitted; completed within 24–48 business hours from time of receipt)
STAKE-OUT — $325–$425 (Includes 1 hour waiting time; each additional hour $100-$150)

Includes 3 attempts (morning/afternoon/evening) + notarized Affidavit of Service/Due Diligence. Additional individuals: 50% off (same address/same order).

Place Order Online | Call (800) 774-6922

CPLR §308 says that New York courts usually need personal, substituted, or conspicuous service. However, if these means are not possible but are too hard, a court may allow other service under CPLR §308(5), which can be done by email or social media. To receive this kind of permission, you need to prove in detail that all other methods have failed, including affidavits and proof that the defendant uses the target email or account.

Email service has become more common, especially in instances involving overseas or elusive defendants, but only with a court order and convincing proof that the account is real. Social media service is still rare and mostly only used in divorce or domestic violence situations, after all other options have failed. Courts put due process and proof of notice first, balancing the reality of modern communication with fairness in the process.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What does CPLR §308(5) mean by “impracticable” service?
   “Impracticable” suggests that traditional techniques of service, such personal, substitution, or prominent service, are very hard or unlikely to work, but not impossible. Before asking for other service, the plaintiff must establish in affidavits that they made extensive attempts and failed.
2. Is it possible for me to serve someone directly via email without a court order?
   No. Email service is not valid without a court order allowing it under CPLR §308(5). Even if the defendant reads it, it could be thrown out.
3. How can I show that the defendant’s email address is theirs?
   Courts need objective proof, like past letters, confirmations from that address, or recent activities. An affidavit that explains your history of communication makes your request for electronic service stronger.
4. When is it okay to use social media?
   Social media service is usually only allowed when all other options have failed and the defendant’s account has been verified as real and actively used. Courts have usually allowed it in family or marriage proceedings where physical service was not possible.
5. Is social media service enough on its own?
   Not very often. Courts usually only allow it as a second way to give notice, along with other ways like publication or letter. A purely digital service must show that it is likely to give actual notice.
6. What should be in a motion for electronic service?
   A motion must have:

1. Affidavits describing attempts at personal or substituted service.
2. Proof that you own the email or social media account and use it.
3. Suggested material and way to offer it.
4. A request for a clear ex parte order that includes the time, address, and proof of service.

7. What proof of service is okay for sending things electronically?
   Screenshots, “read receipts,” email delivery confirmations, or server logs that verify the message was sent and viewed are usually good ways to establish that the service was completed.
8. Is service through WhatsApp, Instagram, or Messenger acceptable?
   It can be, but only if a court says so and the defendant’s actions and receipt can be demonstrated through things like “read” indicators on messages or screenshots of delivery confirmations.
9. Will New York provide more electronic services in the future?
   Maybe. Courts are becoming more amenable to digital means, but they must still follow tight due process rules. The law is moving towards recognising confirmed electronic communication as a valid way to give notice, especially for hard-to-find or multinational defendants.

The internet has changed the world, even in service of process. The traditional methods of serving process in New York are personal service, substituted service, or conspicuous publication, as outlined in CPLR § 308. Judicial willingness to consider email or social media as alternate methods of service, is growing in tandem with technological advancements and the difficulty in locating parties.  Consequently, a private process service agency such as Undisputed Legal can help identify where alternative service of process opportunities can be enacted.  

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS & MEMBERSHIPS

The default procedures for serving a Summons and Complaint as outlined in CPLR Section 308 are applicable under New York law. When the established methods are not feasible, service might be done ‘in such manner as the court, upon motion without notice, directs’ according to CPLR § 308(5). ‘Impracticable’ does not imply impossible, but rather that the usual means of providing the service are extremely challenging to implement. 

Court orders under §  308(5), based on a showing of impracticability, and following due process are the only ways for email or social media services to be authorised by CPLR. Because courts have mandated strict adherence to CPLR § 308, service by email is usually considered illegal in the absence of such an order, even in matters pertaining to matrimonial or divorce proceedings.

As an alternative to more conventional means of serving or in cases involving defendants located outside of the country, courts have started to consider requests for serve by email in recent years. If the defendant is likely to get notice and there is proof of an attempt at Hague or international service, a New York court may authorise email service in cases where service abroad via treaty requirements fails or becomes unreasonable.

Requirements of service with Conventional Service Approaches

New York Courts have stressed that using email or an alternate service should only be done as a last option when all other attempts under CPLR § 308(1), (2), or (4) have been unsuccessful or are obviously not feasible. Evidence of several efforts, thorough investigations, verification of addresses, and, in the case of foreign countries, the use of international treaty processes, are of the utmost importance.

Simply stating that service of process is challenging is insufficient. Process servers’ whereabouts, the status of any individuals located, the validity of any out-of-date addresses, the likelihood of mail returns, and any other relevant information must be included in affidavits.

The defendant’s actual usage of the given email address or social media account must be proven to the court. For instance, proof of previous email exchanges, formal notifications sent to that address, confirmations, or current activity. The court may determine that the service is inadequate if the email address is outdated or poorly linked. Under these conditions, the method must be able to give notification. Therefore, it’s possible that email needs to be accompanied by another technique (such as mailing or publication) or that there must be evidence that the receiver received, read, or had a reason to reply to the email.

A court order, known as an ex parte order, is required for authorisation, and these orders are frequently issued without prior warning. There should be no room for confusion on the method of service; the order should spell it out in detail, including the email address, contents of the message, and the day and time of service, along with any necessary acknowledgement or affidavit.

 It is unusual for social media service to be authorised outside of family or marital court settings or in cases when conventional service options have completely failed. Disagreement frequently arises when trying to verify account activity.  Many courts around the nation have disagreed on whether or not service of papers via social media can be sufficient. Those courts that did approve of it, however, only as an additional method of service, not as a sole means. In contrast, the Court ruled in the New York matrimonial case Baidoo v. Blood-Dzraku that plaintiff proved that there was no alternative way to serve defendant with the divorce papers because it was either impossible or extremely impractical. 

However, it should be remembered that even in the Baidoo case, the plaintiff proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all other forms of service had failed, which is why the court permitted service via social media as a main and independent form of service rather than an accessory one. 

Can We Rely on Social Media as an Alternative Service Mode?

The demand to serve the defendant’s social media accounts has grown since the courts allowed plaintiffs to serve procedures by email. In its decision in Baidoo v. Blood-Dzraku, the use of social media platforms as forums via which a summons can be given appears to be the next frontier in the growing law of social process over the internet. Furthermore, the court upheld the validity of an order allowing the service of process by electronic mail in a trademark infringement case involving Transamerica Corp v TransAmericaMultiservice inc. et al.  This was done because the plaintiff was unable to make personal service due to the Defendants’ evasive conduct.), 

In some instances, it is necessary to personally deliver court documents to the other party. This would be in opposition to situations involving alternative services or social media, such as those involving child custody or financial garnishment. The burden of proof is with the legal guardian bringing the child custody case to make sure the other side gets the summons, ideally by personal service delivery. Eight days prior to the initial court appearance is the minimum time required by law for the summons to be served. The importance of personal delivery in child custody matters cannot be overstated. It provides verifiable evidence that the other party was duly informed within the stipulated deadline. A court order is required for the use of alternative summons delivery methods in child custody cases. If, despite making every effort, it is still not possible to provide service in person, then an alternate option must be considered.

Notable alternative service of process service Cases

Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International Interlink was the first case to use electronic service. The defendant’s attorney and its foreign courier were served by conventional mail and email, respectively. Since the defendant did not follow the court’s discovery requirements, a default judgement was entered. After the trial court rejected the defendant’s motion to dismiss due to inadequate serving of process and lack of personal jurisdiction, the defendant took their case to appeal.

Facebook can be ‘reasonably calculated to provide defendants with notice of future filings‘ because it recognised that the reasonableness inquiry is meant to ‘unshackle  the federal courts from anachronistic methods of service and permit  them entry into the technological renaissance‘). In addition, the court got ‘independent confirmation’ that one of the indicated email addresses belonged to a defendant as it had been used to contact with the court multiple times. The fact that some of the defendants had listed their positions at the defendant firms and that they were Facebook ‘friends’ with one another provided more proof that the profiles were real. 

The court also took into account that the defendants had shown prior awareness of the action; and the FTC had made multiple good faith attempts to serve the defendants through alternative channels. As a result, the FTC’s plan to use Facebook and email to serve process was a probable effective way to get in touch with the defendants and met the requirements for alternative service. Based on this ruling, it seems that serving process via email and social media can be a cost-effective and efficient way to reach foreign or even domestic parties that are hard to reach through traditional methods, provided that the party suing can prove the accounts’ authenticity.

Opinions in each case have pointed to the same criteria for social media service The present standard alternative service approach involves publishing, which may be an expensive ordeal, particularly if numerous publications are needed in a short period of time. With so many people using social media and less people buying and subscribing to traditional newspapers, this is a great alternative service technique that will get the subject the service records more often.

Step-by-step Guide to Email or Social media Process Service

A motion accompanied by an affidavit explaining why a certain email address, phone number, or social media account is likely to be owned by the receiver must be filed with the court before electronic service can be requested. Incorporate any correspondence between the party serving and the receiver, such as emails and texts, into the affidavit. For social media accounts, be ready to provide proof of ownership, posts and status updates, communications between the serving party and recipient through that profile, and the account’s age (the older it is, the more likely it is to be legitimate). This will ensure that the recipient uses the profile regularly. Keep an eye out for changes to the profile photo, especially if the account is hidden.

If proof of receipt can be shown, a judge is more inclined to approve delivery through electronic means. You can see if someone has read your message on Facebook Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp. A ‘read receipt’ is a feature that is available in several email applications and even in many text messaging apps. The court has the authority to mandate electronic service if it is ‘made in a manner consistent with due process.’

Second, with proper notice of the lawsuit, the court must offer the defendant or respondent an electronic copy of the summons and complaint if it finds that they can access and read them. Additionally,  the defendant’s or respondent’s last known dwelling address must be provided in the summons. Electronic summonses require the serving party to submit proof of service to the court, such as a screenshot or printout of the court’s website.

Issues with Social Media Service

Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Twitter are just a few of the many social networking sites where almost everyone has an account. It would appear that social media is the greatest way to reach a person who is out of reach, since these accounts can be accessed from anywhere in the world. But there are still a lot of problems with this service model.

 There are a lot of fake accounts that appear on social media regularly, making it hard to verify a profile. A malicious actor might engage in what is known as ‘spoofing’ when they obtain online images and personal details about another individual and use them to construct a false identity. It can be quite challenging to determine whether an account is indeed fraudulent at times.

 It could be difficult to prove that the defendant was served notice; for example, if the person receiving the notice never answers the message, it is impossible to know whether the documents were seen and received. The ownership of the account is irrelevant if the intended recipient does not engage with the service through social media.

Hackers unlawfully obtain access to social media accounts on a daily basis, putting users’ privacy at risk. The intended receiver may not receive adequate notification or even see the documents in such a scenario. A user’s account is at risk of unauthorised access if they leave it logged into another device. That way, someone other than the intended receiver could view the documents, and they could potentially gain access to private information.

When providing service electronically, businesses are still need to adhere to the same rules and regulations as when providing service in a more conventional manner. They are not allowed to impersonate someone or create a false social media account in order to communicate with others. When contacting someone electronically, such as through social media, to serve them, process servers must be forthright about their identity and the nature of their work.

The evolution of process service  through electronic mail, SMS, and social media has resulted in a disjointed set of standards and guidelines. Given the relative youth of social media, the procedure and regulations that must be adhered to are currently being determined by courts nationwide. Although the legal industry may be slow to embrace electronic service, courts are starting to let more and more social media to serve process. Electronic service, even as a last resort, may prove to be an effective way to ensure defendants are properly served. However, courts must first acknowledge the serious authentication concerns and risks associated with social media service of process before they will allow it.

Best Practices

Courts in New York authorize email or social media service of process only after traditional methods—such as personal delivery, substituted service, or conspicuous posting—have been diligently attempted and proven unsuccessful. To meet the high evidentiary threshold of CPLR §308(5), process servers and attorneys must demonstrate exhaustive due diligence and ensure that the electronic means chosen is reasonably calculated to provide actual notice.

To maintain compliance and credibility, best practices include:

• Document Every Attempt: Keep detailed records of all personal, substituted, and mail service efforts before requesting electronic service authorization.
• Verify the Account or Email: Confirm the respondent actively uses the email or social media account through login history, messaging activity, or mutual contacts.
• Secure Court Authorization: File an ex parte motion supported by affidavits of prior attempts, evidence of active use, and proposed message content.
• Preserve Digital Evidence: Capture and archive screenshots, timestamps, or confirmation receipts showing successful transmission.
• Maintain Confidentiality: Ensure compliance with data protection and privacy laws when using digital platforms.
• Partner with Professionals: Engaging Undisputed Legal’s licensed process servers ensures that all digital service requests are properly documented, verified, and executed to withstand judicial scrutiny.

These best practices reduce the risk of rejection by the court and establish the highest level of procedural integrity.

Case Studies

1. Court-Approved Facebook Service in New York

A family law attorney faced repeated failed attempts to serve a defendant who had moved out of state. Undisputed Legalgathered verifiable evidence showing the respondent’s active Facebook activity—messages, posts, and recent logins. The attorney filed a motion under CPLR §308(5), supported by our detailed affidavit and screenshots. The court granted authorization for service via Facebook Messenger. Within twenty-four hours, Undisputed Legal transmitted the summons and complaint and confirmed the message was viewed. The court deemed service effective, saving the client weeks of delay.

2. Email Service in a Commercial Contract Dispute

In a Manhattan contract case, a corporate respondent had deactivated its physical office and failed to maintain a registered agent address. Our team located a verifiable business email used for ongoing customer correspondence. Through collaboration with counsel, Undisputed Legal prepared a due-diligence report, supporting motion papers, and proof of the account’s active use. The court granted permission for email service, and our documentation allowed the attorney to proceed without procedural challenge.

These cases demonstrate Undisputed Legal’s capacity to blend technology, legal compliance, and investigative skill to accomplish what traditional service methods cannot.

Trusted Legal References for Process Service

Undisputed Legal Inc. – Nationwide & International Process Service
Provides professional process service throughout the United States and over 120 countries, ensuring full compliance with local, federal, and international laws, including Hague and non-Hague procedures.
Phone Number: 212-203-8001

U.S. Courts – Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 4: Process)
Defines the federal framework for serving process, including authorized individuals, accepted service methods, and procedural requirements in civil matters.
Phone Number: 202-502-2600

U.S. Department of State – Judicial Assistance: Service of Process Abroad
Provides official guidance for serving judicial documents internationally through treaties, consular channels, and Letters Rogatory procedures.
Phone Number: 1-888-407-4747

Hague Conference on Private International Law – Service Convention (1965)
Establishes internationally recognized procedures for cross-border service of judicial and extrajudicial documents, promoting cooperation among member countries.

Additional Resources

Why Choose Undisputed Legal

Choosing Undisputed Legal means entrusting your case to a process-service agency that combines innovation with precision. Our experienced professionals understand that alternative service—whether by email, social media, or electronic portal—requires meticulous preparation and unimpeachable evidence. We deliver:

• Court-Compliant Procedures: All digital service actions adhere to CPLR §308(5) and judicial precedents.
• Advanced Verification Tools: We use digital forensics, metadata analysis, and real-time tracking to confirm account authenticity and proof of delivery.
• Expert Affidavits: Our affidavits include screenshots, technical metadata, and activity logs admissible in court.
• Nationwide and International Reach: With coverage across all 50 states and over 120 countries, our global network handles traditional and electronic service with the same legal accuracy.
• Transparent Communication: Clients receive updates at every stage through our secure online portal, ensuring full accountability.

Undisputed Legal stands as a leader in modern service methods, bridging traditional diligence with emerging legal technology.

ORDER PROCESS SERVICE TODAY

Ensure your electronic service of process is court-approved. Trust Undisputed Legal to handle every detail—from due diligence to digital verification. Order Process Service Online Today or Contact Us for fast, verified, and compliant delivery through email or social media.

Conclusion

As courts adapt to a digital society, email and social media service of process have become practical and legally recognized tools when personal service is impossible. Yet these methods demand rigorous compliance and documentary precision. The courts of New York will authorize electronic service only when the petitioner proves that it is both necessary and reliable under CPLR §308(5).

By partnering with Undisputed Legal, clients gain access to a team that combines technological capability with a deep understanding of New York civil procedure. Our process servers prepare complete due-diligence packages, secure judicial authorization, and provide verifiable electronic proof of service that stands up in court.

Whether your case involves domestic service, international defendants, or evasive respondents, trust Undisputed Legal to deliver accuracy, efficiency, and compliance every time.

Order Process Service Online Today or Contact Undisputed Legal to discuss how our professionals can help you navigate complex electronic service requirements with confidence.

WHAT OUR CLIENTS ARE SAYING

FOR ASSISTANCE SERVING LEGAL PAPERS IN NEW YORK

Click the “Place Order” button at the top of this page or call us at (800) 774-6922 to begin. Our team of experienced process servers is ready to assist you with reliable and efficient service of your documents, ensuring compliance with all legal requirements. We offer both comprehensive support and à la carte services tailored to your specific needs:

• Prompt and professional service of process
• Accurate completion of affidavits of service
• Rush service for time-sensitive matters
• Skip tracing for hard-to-locate parties
• Detailed reporting on service attempts

Don’t risk case delays or dismissals due to improper service. Let Undisputed Legal’s skilled team handle the important task of serving legal papers for you. Our diligent, professional service helps attorneys, pro se litigants, and parents ensure their papers are served correctly and on time.

Take the first step towards ensuring proper service in your case – click “Place Order” or call (800) 774-6922 now. Let Undisputed Legal be your trusted partner in navigating the critical process of serving your documents.

“Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction, and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives” – Foster, William Aliam Agh intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction, and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives” – Foster, William A

Sources

¹ §  308. Personal service upon a natural person.  Personal service upon  a natural person shall be made by any of the following methods:

1. by delivering the summons within the state  to  the  person  to  be   served; or

2.  by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable   age and discretion at the actual place of business,  dwelling  place  or   usual  place  of  abode of the person to be served and by either mailing  the summons to the person  to  be  served  at  his  or  her  last  known   residence or by mailing the summons by first class mail to the person to   be  served at his or her actual place of business in an envelope bearing   the legend ‘personal and confidential’ and not indicating on the outside   thereof, by return address or otherwise, that the communication is  from   an  attorney or concerns an action against the person to be served, such   delivery and mailing to be effected within twenty days  of  each  other;   proof  of  such  service  shall  be  filed  with  the clerk of the court   designated in the summons within twenty days of either such delivery  or   mailing, whichever is effected later; service shall be complete ten days   after  such  filing;  proof  of  service  shall  identify such person of   suitable age and discretion and  state  the  date,  time  and  place  of   service,  except  in  matrimonial actions where service hereunder may be   made pursuant to an order made in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of   subdivision  a  of  section  two  hundred  thirty-two  of  the  domestic   relations law; or

3. by delivering the summons within the state to the agent for service   of the person to be served as  designated  under  rule  318,  except  in   matrimonial  actions  where service hereunder may be made pursuant to an   order made in accordance with the provisions of subdivision a of section   two hundred thirty-two of the domestic relations law;

4. where service under paragraphs one and two cannot be made with  due   diligence,  by  affixing  the  summons  to the door of either the actual   place of business, dwelling place or usual place  of  abode  within  the   state  of  the  person to be served and by either mailing the summons to   such person at his or her last known residence or by mailing the summons   by first class mail to the person to be served  at  his  or  her  actual   place  of  business  in  an  envelope  bearing  the legend ‘personal and   confidential’ and not indicating  on  the  outside  thereof,  by  return  address  or  otherwise,  that  the  communication is from an attorney or   concerns an action against the person to be served,  such  affixing  and   mailing  to  be effected within twenty days of each other; proof of such   service shall be filed with the clerk of the  court  designated  in  the   summons within twenty days of either such affixing or mailing, whichever   is effected later; service shall be complete ten days after such filing,   except  in  matrimonial  actions  where  service  hereunder  may be made   pursuant  to  an  order  made  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  subdivision  a  of  section  two  hundred  thirty-two  of  the  domestic   relations law;

5. in such manner as the court, upon motion without  notice,  directs,   if  service  is impracticable under paragraphs one, two and four of this  section.

6. For purposes of this section,  ‘actual  place  of  business’  shall   include any location that the defendant, through regular solicitation or   advertisement, has held out as its place of business

NY CPLR § 308 (2024)

² The theory is based on constitutional due process, particularly the Mullane standard, which states that notice must be given in a way that is fairly calculated to inform interested parties and that the recipient must be given a meaningful opportunity to react.

³ Justice Cohen granted permission for service via email in the 2024 Commercial Division (New York County) ruling Shetty v. Bank of Baroda, a case where service under the Hague Convention had been deemed problematic. After looking into the matter and trying to find email addresses for specific defendants, the court determined that email service was suitable under CPLR § 308(5), as the plaintiff had sought service through the Indian Central Authority without any evidence of successful service. Recognising that, when utilised correctly, email could fulfil due process, the court highlighted the impracticality of other techniques and the concrete efforts to identify defendants. ‘Lundin PLLC’

⁴ In the case of Rae v. Marciano (Second Department, 2024), the divorce action was brought by the plaintiff who sought to serve the defendant by email. The plaintiff neglected to get a court order prior to sending the Summons and Complaint by email; nevertheless, this was done after conventional service failed. Email service is useless without authorisation or a court order under CPLR § 308(5), as the Appellate Division upheld after the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s late motion. The defendant’s failure to accept email service and the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the impracticability were highlighted by the court. Law.com
An essential point made by this case is that courts nonetheless require explicit permission or direction under CPLR 308(5), regardless of how handy email service may seem or how implied an informal agreement may seem (5). Email is useless without

⁵ Federal Judge dislikes Facebook as a method for service | IP intelligence. (2023, July 12). IP Intelligence. https://www.ipintelligencereport.com/blogs/federal-judge-dislikes-facebook-as-a-method-for-service/

⁶ Federal Trade Commission v. PCCare247 Inc. et al, No. 1:2012cv07189 – Document 100 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: The FTC’s motion to serve defendants through alternative means is granted. The FTC is granted leave to serve the Summons and Complaint and other documents in these cases on the following defendants in the following manner as set forth herein. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending in these three cases. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 9/18/2013) (djc) 

⁷ S3d 711, N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015

⁸ 1:18-cv-22483 (S.D.Fla.).

⁹ Snyder v. Alternate Energy Inc. (2022, February 3). vLex. https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/snyder-v-alternate-energy-887803471

¹0 Defendant, an online gambling establishment situated in Costa Rica, was sued for trademark infringement by Plaintiff, a Nevada hotel and gambling corporation

¹1 The court reasoned that the defendants’ Internet-based business and the usage of the stated email addresses for different parts of the alleged conspiracy provided sufficient evidence to support its conclusion. The email addresses that were designated to receive notifications for two of the Indian defendants in PCCAre247 also acted as their Facebook profiles.

¹2 Citing Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1017 (9th Cir. 2002

¹3 Griffin v. Maryland, 419 Md. 343 (2011), the necessity of authenticating evidence found on social media was recently addressed by the highest court in Maryland in its ruling.

DIRECTIONS TO OUR NEW YORK CITY HEADQUARTERS

For access to our New York City corporate headquarters at One World Trade Center, 85th Floor, please click the embedded map and call ahead to be added to building security. Be sure to bring all necessary documents and payment to expedite your visit. Undisputed Legal Inc. maintains offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. We provide legal support services in all 50 states and over 120 countries worldwide.