News

“You’ve been served” does not always come with a knock at the door. Increasingly, it might show up as a ping on your phone. But service through TikTok or an Instagram DM (aka, “Direct Message”) must be earned and meticulously executed; it requires showing the court that social media is a reliable way to reach the defendant and following the court’s instructions to the letter. As digital service becomes more common, novel logistical hurdles implicating due process concerns, are sure to follow.

The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure were modified in 2020 to allow service of citation electronically—including by social media—as long as the request demonstrates service in that manner will be “reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of the suit.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b)(2). Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) permits service according to state law, federal courts in Texas likewise allow service by social media, subject to certain procedural and evidentiary prerequisites.

Establishing the Basis for Social Media Service

To serve citation through social media, plaintiff must file a motion accompanied by a sworn statement that: (1) lists any location where the defendant may be found; (2) states specific facts showing service in person or by mail has been attempted but unsuccessful; and (3) demonstrates why service by social media is “reasonably effective” to put the defendant on notice of the lawsuit. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b)(2). Courts have determined service by social media is “reasonably effective” when evidence establishes the accounts both belong to, and were recently used by, the defendant. See e.g., DIRECTV, LLC v. WNK Assocs., No. 6:22-CV-00423-JDK, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25802, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2023); In the Int. of V.R.W., No. 05-22-00631-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 3712, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 31, 2023, no pet.). Courts typically look for three categories of proof to satisfy this standard:

Ownership. To establish that a social media account belongs to the defendant, a plaintiff may show that the account is tied to the defendant’s email address or phone number, the account is linked to defendant’s personal website, or copies of posts, photos, live recordings, or vanishing stories by the account verifying the defendant’s ownership. Multiple verification methods strengthen the argument that service to the account is reasonably effective to provide notice.

Recent Use. Once ownership is established, a plaintiff may demonstrate the defendant’s recent use of the account by including time-stamped screenshots of posts, messages, comments, reactions to posts, or vanishing stories. There is no clear rule regarding what counts as “recent” use, but courts have found activity within three months of the motion to be sufficient. See Tepozteco v. Batteast, No. 3:25-CV-172-S, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93711, at *9 (N.D. Tex. May 16, 2025).

Personal Use. Some courts have stressed that the evidence must show the account activity came from the defendant personally. This emphasis suggests that serving an individual through an organizational or group social media account would likely be ineffective.

Judicial Authorization of Alternative Service

Once the required showing is made, courts frequently authorize the requested method of service. Approved service has taken the form of messages to the defendant and/or public posts on platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter/X, WhatsApp, TikTok, and even SoundCloud. See Sony Music Entm’t Inc. v. Clark-Rainbolt, No. 4:23-CV-0275-P, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103170, at *4 (N.D. Tex. June 14, 2023). When specifying alternative means of service, the court should also specify the manner in which proof of service must be provided to the court. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 107(f). In so doing, courts are cognizant of the risk of nonreceipt. Courts often permit, or even require, plaintiffs to serve the defendant through email in addition to social media. In one case, the court allowed service through Facebook and LinkedIn messages, but required the messages contain a Dropbox link to the legal documents so that plaintiff could confirm whether defendant opened the link. See DIRECTV, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25802, at *10.

The Necessity of Strict Compliance

Service by social media must strictly comply with both the rules of civil procedure and court’s order authorizing it. For example, if alternative service was granted without the plaintiff first showing traditional service attempts were unsuccessful or insufficiently demonstrating the ownership of the social media account, a court of appeals is likely to find the trial court abused its discretion and that service was ineffective.

Execution of service must be precise as well. Service by social media may only be carried out by a disinterested process server approved under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 103. Plaintiff and their counsel are thus prohibited from personally posting or messaging the defendant to effect service. In the Int. of H.L.M.S., No. 06-23-00067-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1573, at *4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 1, 2024, no pet. h.). Even a small deviation in service carries the risk of disaster. Service conducted by Facebook Messenger, as opposed to the court-approved Facebook post, required the plaintiff’s default judgment against the defendant be set aside. In the Int. of V.R.W., No. 05-22-00631-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 3712, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 31, 2023, no pet.).

Emerging Issues in Digital Service of Process

Given the rise of screen time and increasing necessity of digital presence, service by social media is arguably more likely to be “reasonably effective” than even service by certified mail. Thus, service by DM or a summons showing up on your FYP (aka, “For You Page”) is likely to become more commonplace. As it does, courts will necessarily be faced with novel due process issues: Is service effective if posted publicly in an online forum such as Reddit, where moderators may delete posted content? Will read receipts, verified by the platform, become the gold standard of proof of service? How does a user’s privacy settings affect the “reasonably effective” analysis?

As the doctrine continues to develop, practitioners should stay the course: build a strong evidentiary record to support “reasonable effectiveness” of service by social media. Precision in the motion and execution will ensure the process served by social media withstands due-process challenges, even as standards mature.

If your business has questions regarding service of process or requires assistance with a pending lawsuit, please contact Becca Jordan or Jim Bartlett for further guidance.