Can a Dentist’s Social Media Posts Breach a Non-Solicitation Agreement “IRL”?
Jordan Uditsky • December 16, 2019
I don’t think it’s a stretch to presume that if you are a dentist or member of a dental practice, you have some kind of social media presence. Sure, it may be a Facebook or LinkedIn page that has been gathering dust since you first set it up years ago. For many dentists, however, active social media participation is a vital part of developing their practices, attracting new patients, and promoting awareness of their services and credentials.
But if you have moved on to a different practice or opened your own and are bound by the terms of a non-solicitation agreement, your online posting, friending, and connecting can raise some tricky issues “IRL” (“in real life,” as the kids say).
Non-solicitation agreements limit an employee’s ability to actively seek the business of the employer’s current patients/clients/customers for a given period, though they are free to set up shop and do business. Recently, courts here in Illinois and across the country have started to weigh in on whether and what kind of social media activity can constitute solicitation in violation of a general non-solicitation provision that does not specifically address social media use.
Generic and General vs. Specific and Targeted
The common thread in the developing case law is one which distinguishes between two types of social media activity:
- generalized social media engagement, such as LinkedIn or Facebook pages and posts, as well as friend or connection requests that do not substantively encourage recipients to become patient, customers, or employees
- posts and friend or connection requests targeted to specific people or groups and/or clearly focusing on attracting patients, clients, and employees to the business or practice
While every case presents specific facts and circumstances that will play a role in a court’s analysis, the former category of social media use is likely to be okay, while the latter may expose dentists to liability for breach of their non-solicitation agreement.
A 2017 decision by the Illinois Appellate Court contains a robust discussion about the topic and how courts in other jurisdictions have ruled.
In Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Am. Senior Benefits LLC, a former employee of the plaintiff moved to a new job and sent generic LinkedIn connection requests to three of his former colleagues who were still employed at Bankers Life. While the requests themselves contained nothing of substance, if those colleagues accepted the invitations and looked at the employee’s profile page, they would see a job opening posted by his new employer. The plaintiff claimed that this constituted solicitation of employees in violation of the former employee’s agreement.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims and held that a generic connection request to those employees, without more, does not constitute solicitation because “the next steps, whether to click on [plaintiff’s] profile or to access a job posting on [plaintiff’s] LinkedIn page, were all actions for which [plaintiff] could not be held responsible.”
Look at the Substance
In arriving at its decision, the court noted other cases involving similar and distinguishable fact patterns, all of which provide a good idea of where courts will draw the line between acceptable social media use and prohibited solicitation. Though these decisions do not bind Illinois judges, courts in other jurisdictions have found the following to not be violations of non-solicitation covenants:
- a web designer updates his LinkedIn page to reflect his new job and adds a post encouraging his contacts to “check out” a recent project he worked on.
- becoming friends with former clients on Facebook.
- posting a job opportunity on LinkedIn (as opposed to sending it to specific employees).
- employee's postings on Facebook touting his new employer's product and which was viewed by former colleagues did not violate agreement to not recruit employees from his former employer.
In contrast to these examples, the court also cited a federal case from Michigan
in which a former employee published a blog and other posts on Facebook post urging his former co-workers to leave his former employer by stating, "If you knew what I knew, you would do what I do."
Finding in favor of the employer, that court noted that “it is the substance of the message conveyed, and not the medium through which it is transmitted, that determines whether a communication qualifies as a solicitation… Communications qualifying as solicitations do not lose this character simply by virtue of being posted on the Internet."
For dentists who move on to greener pastures while bound by a non-solicitation agreement, it is the “substance” of their subsequent social media activity that they need to carefully consider before clicking “Enter.”
Though each situation must be evaluated on its own set of facts and circumstances, connection and friend requests to former patients may be acceptable provided such requests do not tout their new practice or otherwise encourage those patients to switch dentists. Similarly, social media posts and pages visible to the general public that promote a dentist’s new practice should avoid being specifically directed to former patients or risk violating a non-solicitation.
Again, every contract and every social media post is different. If you are a dentist or practice that has concerns about whether your social media activity or that of a former colleague may raise issues with existing contractual limitations, you should discuss your concerns with an attorney experienced with dental non-solicitation agreements.
Grogan Hesse & Uditsky: Serving Chicagoland’s Dental Professionals
At Grogan Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you.
Please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us
online to arrange for your free initial consultation.
Speak to an Attorney
Related Posts
Recent amendments to the Illinois Dental Practice Act (the “Act”), which Gov. JB Pritzker is expected to soon sign into law, will make it easier for newly minted dental professionals to begin practicing while their license applications are pending. The amendments, which would take effect on January 1, 2026, establish the following criteria under which license-pending dentists and dental hygienists can practice under the delegation of a licensed general dentist: The Applicant has completed and passed the IDFPR-approved licensure exam and presented their employer with an official written notification indicating such; The Applicant has completed and submitted the application for licensure; and The Applicant has submitted the required licensure fee. Once obtained, authorization for dentists and dental hygienists to practice under these provisions can be terminated upon the occurrence of any of the following: The Applicant receives their full-practice license; IDFPR provides notification that the Applicant’s application has been denied; IDFPR requests that the Applicant stop practicing as a license-pending dentist/dental hygienist until the Department makes an official decision to grant or deny a license to practice; or Six months have passed since the official date of the Applicant’s passage of the licensure exam (i.e., the date on the formal written notification of such from the Department). IDFPR has yet to post anything on its website regarding these amendments, but we will provide an update if and when it does. If you have any questions about these new provisions regarding the employment of license-pending dentists and hygienists, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
As all dental practice owners know, insurance companies frequently make adjustments to their reimbursement amounts, leading to the common circumstance that a patient who paid a certain amount at the time of treatment may be entitled to a credit from the practice. That credit, usually kept on the practice’s books so that the patient can apply it to future services, has two distinct qualities that have significant legal and financial implications when a practice is about to be purchased or sold. Failure to account for and address such outstanding patient credits early in a transaction can lead to unwanted surprises as well as potentially costly penalties. That is because a patient credit is not only a liability on the books of the practice, it is also the as-yet unclaimed personal property of the patient. That latter characteristic comes with legal obligations under state unclaimed property laws. If you are buying or selling a dental practice, here is what you need to know about handling patient credits during and after the transaction. Accounting For Credits in the Purchase Price More often than not, unused patient credits remain just that – unused. If a practice purchaser knew for an absolute certainty that the patient would never return and ask for the credit to be applied to new services, it would not impact the underlying practice valuation or sale price. Of course, nothing is certain, and if a practice has thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of credits on the books, even a fraction of those credits, if redeemed, could have a significant impact on the practice’s profitability. That is why any patient credits should be disclosed, identified, and addressed as early in the transaction as possible so that neither the buyer nor seller find themselves in the uncomfortable position of renegotiating the purchase price or providing the buyer with a credit. Reporting and Accounting Obligations Under Unclaimed Property Laws Any business holding goods or funds that belong to a customer, client, or other company or individual cannot simply pocket that property or money because its owner may have forgotten about it or is unaware of its existence. If a business holding such property, which includes patient credits, loses contact with the owner for a certain period set by law (called the “dormancy period”), the company effectively becomes the trustee of that property, holding it for the benefit of the owner until they make a claim for its return. In Illinois, that claim may come after the owner searches the Illinois State Treasurer’s unclaimed property database . The information in that database comes from businesses that must provide the Treasurer’s Office with detailed and frequent reports about any unclaimed property they hold pursuant to the requirements of Illinois’ Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (the “Act”). Most U.S. states have adopted this model act, so the following discussion of Illinois’ version is representative of unclaimed property laws generally. When Does Property Become “Unclaimed”? As noted, property is considered unclaimed and abandoned if it has not had any activity within a designated “dormancy period” and the holder is unable to locate the property owner. Under Sec. 15-201 of the Act, the dormancy period is three years for most types of property, though others have longer or shorter periods. For example, there is a 15-year period for traveler's checks, a five-year period for money orders, and a one-year period for payroll checks. Patient credits would fall under the three-year period. Reporting and Notice Obligations For Holders of Unclaimed Property Any for-profit and not-for-profit business entities that conduct business in Illinois are required to electronically report unclaimed property to the Treasurer’s Office on an annual basis. Even businesses not holding any unclaimed property must file a negative report advising as such if they meet any of the following criteria: Annual sales of more than $1,000,000; Securities that are publicly traded; A net worth of more than $10,000,000; or More than 100 employees. The deadline for Illinois dental practices to file unclaimed property reports for unused patient credits is May 1 of each year. The report should reflect one year of account activity three years prior to the last calendar year. Example: If your report is due May 1, 2018, your report will cover activity from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. The detailed requirements as to what must be included in the report are set forth in Section 760.410 of the Illinois Administrative Code . At the same time the report is filed, unclaimed property must be remitted to the Treasurer’s Office. Holders of unclaimed property also must make efforts to reach out to the owner before filing their report and remitting the property. Specifically, the holder of property presumed abandoned shall send a due diligence notice to the apparent owner by first-class U.S. Mail between 60 days and one year before reporting the property. The required contents of the due diligence notice are set forth in Section 760.460 of the Illinois Administrative Code . Consequences of Non-Compliance Holders of unclaimed property face significant penalties for failing to comply with the reporting, notice, and remittance requirements of the Act. Interest and penalties may be imposed on the failure to file, pay, or deliver property by the required due date. Specifically, the state can charge interest at 1% per month on the value of the unreported/unpaid property and impose a penalty of $200 per day up to a maximum of $5,000 until the date a report is filed or the unclaimed property is paid or delivered. For businesses that may have neglected their obligations under the Act, Illinois (and most other states that have adopted the uniform act) offers a Voluntary Disclosure Agreement (VDA) program for unclaimed property holders. In exchange for voluntary compliance through an executed VDA, the Treasurer's Office will agree to forgo the right to assess penalties and interest outlined in the Act. How To Address Unclaimed Property Obligations in a Practice Sale As part of transactional due diligence, a practice purchaser should ensure that the seller has satisfied all of its reporting obligations under applicable law. If it has not, the purchaser should require the seller to complete a Voluntary Disclosure Agreement prior to closing and also include a robust indemnification clause in the purchase agreement should the practice later face penalties for noncompliance. Because of the financial complexities and legal risks involved relating to unclaimed patient credits, practice buyers and sellers alike should consult with experienced counsel to help them navigate this significant and oft-neglected aspect of the practice’s finances and operations. If you are a dental professional considering a sale, acquisition, or merger, please contact us at ddslawyers.com at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your complimentary initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Once again, mandatory Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting deadlines under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) have been put on hold. Not only have all deadlines been scrapped but domestic reporting companies may soon be permanently relieved of any CTA obligations whatsoever. Just days after stating it would enforce new March 21, 2025 deadlines, FinCEN issued a February 27, 2025, alert announcing that “ it will not issue any fines or penalties or take any other enforcement actions against any companies based on any failure to file or update” BOI reports by the current deadlines “until a forthcoming interim final rule becomes effective and new relevant due dates in the interim final rule have passed. FinCEN said that no later than March 21, 2025, it “intends to issue an interim final rule that extends BOI reporting deadlines, recognizing the need to provide new guidance and clarity as quickly as possible, while ensuring that BOI that is highly useful to important national security, intelligence, and law enforcement activities is reported.” Just two days after FinCEN’s announcement suspending existing deadlines, the Department of the Treasury went even further. In a March 2, 2025 release , the department said that “not only will it not enforce any penalties or fines associated with the beneficial ownership information reporting rule under the existing regulatory deadlines, but it will further not enforce any penalties or fines against U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies or their beneficial owners after the forthcoming rule changes take effect either.” That is because “the Treasury Department will further be issuing a proposed rulemaking that will narrow the scope of the rule to foreign reporting companies only.” The bottom line is that it appears the new administration has decided to kill the CTA altogether as to domestic reporting companies. We will, of course, provide updates as warranted. If you have questions about this latest development or the CTA generally, please contact Jordan Uditsky at Grogan Hesse & Uditsky, P.C.
Recent amendments to the Illinois Dental Practice Act (the “Act”), which Gov. JB Pritzker is expected to soon sign into law, will make it easier for newly minted dental professionals to begin practicing while their license applications are pending. The amendments, which would take effect on January 1, 2026, establish the following criteria under which license-pending dentists and dental hygienists can practice under the delegation of a licensed general dentist: The Applicant has completed and passed the IDFPR-approved licensure exam and presented their employer with an official written notification indicating such; The Applicant has completed and submitted the application for licensure; and The Applicant has submitted the required licensure fee. Once obtained, authorization for dentists and dental hygienists to practice under these provisions can be terminated upon the occurrence of any of the following: The Applicant receives their full-practice license; IDFPR provides notification that the Applicant’s application has been denied; IDFPR requests that the Applicant stop practicing as a license-pending dentist/dental hygienist until the Department makes an official decision to grant or deny a license to practice; or Six months have passed since the official date of the Applicant’s passage of the licensure exam (i.e., the date on the formal written notification of such from the Department). IDFPR has yet to post anything on its website regarding these amendments, but we will provide an update if and when it does. If you have any questions about these new provisions regarding the employment of license-pending dentists and hygienists, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
As all dental practice owners know, insurance companies frequently make adjustments to their reimbursement amounts, leading to the common circumstance that a patient who paid a certain amount at the time of treatment may be entitled to a credit from the practice. That credit, usually kept on the practice’s books so that the patient can apply it to future services, has two distinct qualities that have significant legal and financial implications when a practice is about to be purchased or sold. Failure to account for and address such outstanding patient credits early in a transaction can lead to unwanted surprises as well as potentially costly penalties. That is because a patient credit is not only a liability on the books of the practice, it is also the as-yet unclaimed personal property of the patient. That latter characteristic comes with legal obligations under state unclaimed property laws. If you are buying or selling a dental practice, here is what you need to know about handling patient credits during and after the transaction. Accounting For Credits in the Purchase Price More often than not, unused patient credits remain just that – unused. If a practice purchaser knew for an absolute certainty that the patient would never return and ask for the credit to be applied to new services, it would not impact the underlying practice valuation or sale price. Of course, nothing is certain, and if a practice has thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of credits on the books, even a fraction of those credits, if redeemed, could have a significant impact on the practice’s profitability. That is why any patient credits should be disclosed, identified, and addressed as early in the transaction as possible so that neither the buyer nor seller find themselves in the uncomfortable position of renegotiating the purchase price or providing the buyer with a credit. Reporting and Accounting Obligations Under Unclaimed Property Laws Any business holding goods or funds that belong to a customer, client, or other company or individual cannot simply pocket that property or money because its owner may have forgotten about it or is unaware of its existence. If a business holding such property, which includes patient credits, loses contact with the owner for a certain period set by law (called the “dormancy period”), the company effectively becomes the trustee of that property, holding it for the benefit of the owner until they make a claim for its return. In Illinois, that claim may come after the owner searches the Illinois State Treasurer’s unclaimed property database . The information in that database comes from businesses that must provide the Treasurer’s Office with detailed and frequent reports about any unclaimed property they hold pursuant to the requirements of Illinois’ Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (the “Act”). Most U.S. states have adopted this model act, so the following discussion of Illinois’ version is representative of unclaimed property laws generally. When Does Property Become “Unclaimed”? As noted, property is considered unclaimed and abandoned if it has not had any activity within a designated “dormancy period” and the holder is unable to locate the property owner. Under Sec. 15-201 of the Act, the dormancy period is three years for most types of property, though others have longer or shorter periods. For example, there is a 15-year period for traveler's checks, a five-year period for money orders, and a one-year period for payroll checks. Patient credits would fall under the three-year period. Reporting and Notice Obligations For Holders of Unclaimed Property Any for-profit and not-for-profit business entities that conduct business in Illinois are required to electronically report unclaimed property to the Treasurer’s Office on an annual basis. Even businesses not holding any unclaimed property must file a negative report advising as such if they meet any of the following criteria: Annual sales of more than $1,000,000; Securities that are publicly traded; A net worth of more than $10,000,000; or More than 100 employees. The deadline for Illinois dental practices to file unclaimed property reports for unused patient credits is May 1 of each year. The report should reflect one year of account activity three years prior to the last calendar year. Example: If your report is due May 1, 2018, your report will cover activity from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. The detailed requirements as to what must be included in the report are set forth in Section 760.410 of the Illinois Administrative Code . At the same time the report is filed, unclaimed property must be remitted to the Treasurer’s Office. Holders of unclaimed property also must make efforts to reach out to the owner before filing their report and remitting the property. Specifically, the holder of property presumed abandoned shall send a due diligence notice to the apparent owner by first-class U.S. Mail between 60 days and one year before reporting the property. The required contents of the due diligence notice are set forth in Section 760.460 of the Illinois Administrative Code . Consequences of Non-Compliance Holders of unclaimed property face significant penalties for failing to comply with the reporting, notice, and remittance requirements of the Act. Interest and penalties may be imposed on the failure to file, pay, or deliver property by the required due date. Specifically, the state can charge interest at 1% per month on the value of the unreported/unpaid property and impose a penalty of $200 per day up to a maximum of $5,000 until the date a report is filed or the unclaimed property is paid or delivered. For businesses that may have neglected their obligations under the Act, Illinois (and most other states that have adopted the uniform act) offers a Voluntary Disclosure Agreement (VDA) program for unclaimed property holders. In exchange for voluntary compliance through an executed VDA, the Treasurer's Office will agree to forgo the right to assess penalties and interest outlined in the Act. How To Address Unclaimed Property Obligations in a Practice Sale As part of transactional due diligence, a practice purchaser should ensure that the seller has satisfied all of its reporting obligations under applicable law. If it has not, the purchaser should require the seller to complete a Voluntary Disclosure Agreement prior to closing and also include a robust indemnification clause in the purchase agreement should the practice later face penalties for noncompliance. Because of the financial complexities and legal risks involved relating to unclaimed patient credits, practice buyers and sellers alike should consult with experienced counsel to help them navigate this significant and oft-neglected aspect of the practice’s finances and operations. If you are a dental professional considering a sale, acquisition, or merger, please contact us at ddslawyers.com at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your complimentary initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Once again, mandatory Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting deadlines under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) have been put on hold. Not only have all deadlines been scrapped but domestic reporting companies may soon be permanently relieved of any CTA obligations whatsoever. Just days after stating it would enforce new March 21, 2025 deadlines, FinCEN issued a February 27, 2025, alert announcing that “ it will not issue any fines or penalties or take any other enforcement actions against any companies based on any failure to file or update” BOI reports by the current deadlines “until a forthcoming interim final rule becomes effective and new relevant due dates in the interim final rule have passed. FinCEN said that no later than March 21, 2025, it “intends to issue an interim final rule that extends BOI reporting deadlines, recognizing the need to provide new guidance and clarity as quickly as possible, while ensuring that BOI that is highly useful to important national security, intelligence, and law enforcement activities is reported.” Just two days after FinCEN’s announcement suspending existing deadlines, the Department of the Treasury went even further. In a March 2, 2025 release , the department said that “not only will it not enforce any penalties or fines associated with the beneficial ownership information reporting rule under the existing regulatory deadlines, but it will further not enforce any penalties or fines against U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies or their beneficial owners after the forthcoming rule changes take effect either.” That is because “the Treasury Department will further be issuing a proposed rulemaking that will narrow the scope of the rule to foreign reporting companies only.” The bottom line is that it appears the new administration has decided to kill the CTA altogether as to domestic reporting companies. We will, of course, provide updates as warranted. If you have questions about this latest development or the CTA generally, please contact Jordan Uditsky at Grogan Hesse & Uditsky, P.C.
