Server's Corner

The Ethics of Social Media in the Service of Process

This month we’re exploring the digital frontier. We know that in the world of legal support, the "gold standard" has always been the hand-off—a process server looking a defendant in the eye and handing over the papers. But what happens when the defendant is a "ghost"? No physical address, no workplace, and an uncanny ability to dodge every knock on the door.

Enter the "digital knock." At Roland Process Service and Investigations (RPS&I), we are increasingly asked: Can we just serve them on Facebook? The answer is a classic legal "maybe." While platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook, and even X (formerly Twitter) are becoming the new frontier for service, they come with a complex set of ethical hurdles and legal hoops.

The Shift Toward Virtual Service

For decades, if you couldn't find someone, "Service by Publication" (placing an ad in a local newspaper) was the backup plan. But let's be honest: when was the last time you scoured the legal notices in a physical newspaper?

Courts are starting to agree. In several landmark cases, judges have ruled that a Facebook private message or a LinkedIn InMail is actually more likely to provide actual notice than a dusty newspaper ad. However, this is not a shortcut; it is a "method of last resort."

The 3 Pillars of Ethical Social Media Service

Before a judge in Colorado (or most other states) will even consider allowing social media service, we have to prove three things:

1. The "Diligent Effort" Standard

   You can't jump to Instagram just because you’re tired of driving to a defendant's house. At RPS&I, we must document exhaustive attempts at traditional service first. This includes:

   • Skip tracing to find current addresses.
   • Multiple physical stakeouts at different times of day.
   • Interrogating neighbors or known associates.
2. The Identity Hurdle (Authenticity)

   This is the biggest ethical pitfall. How do we know @JohnDoe123 is actually the real John Doe?

   • Proof of Ownership: We look for unique identifiers—photos of the defendant, specific biographical details, or recent posts that prove they are the sole user of that account.
   • The "Blue Check" Reality: Even a verified badge isn't always enough. We often have to prove the account has been active recently.
3. The "Communication" Trap

   Ethically, process servers and attorneys must avoid pretexting.

   Warning: Sending a "friend request" under a fake name to get past privacy settings is a massive no-no. It can lead to evidence being tossed out and ethical sanctions for the legal team.

Platform-Specific Challenges

Platform	Pros	Cons
Facebook	High daily active use; "Seen" receipts can prove receipt.	High volume of "ghost" or abandoned accounts.
LinkedIn	Professional verification; work history confirms identity.	Strict privacy settings; notification of "profile views" can tip off the defendant.
X (Twitter)	Good for serving corporations or public figures.	Hard to prove the account holder is the one actually reading the DM.

The Future: Substituted Service 2.0

As we move toward 2026, the legal industry is watching for clearer "e-service" statutes. Currently, social media service is usually classified under Substituted Service (like Colorado Rule 4), meaning you need a specific court order for every single case.

At RPS&I, we don't just "hit send." We build a digital trail of evidence that ensures your service stands up to the scrutiny of a judge. We believe the ethics of our industry demand that we embrace new technology without sacrificing the integrity of the law.

By Roland Process Service & Investigations Staff 12-1-2025