“Digital Gatekeeping: How Facebook Job Boards Are Quietly Controlling Access to Court Reporting Jobs—and Why It May Be Illegal”

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt Reporting, Legal ServicesTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In today’s gig economy, access to work is everything. For freelance court reporters, many of whom operate without the safety net of employment benefits or job security, the ability to secure daily work is directly tied to survival. With the evolution of remote work and social media, traditional job boards have shifted online—particularly to Facebook, where dozens of regionally based groups now serve as informal marketplaces for freelance court reporting assignments.

But what happens when access to these digital job boards is unfairly restricted? What if these Facebook groups—often run not by neutral administrators but by fellow reporters with personal agendas—become gatekeepers to economic opportunity? And what if you’re banned from these groups without explanation, without recourse, and without having violated any rules?

That’s not just unethical—it may be illegal.

A Modern Marketplace With No Oversight

Court reporters across the U.S. rely on Facebook groups like “Los Angeles Superior Court Reporter Job Board,” “Court Reporter Job Board – New Orleans, Louisiana,” or “Texas Court Reporters’ Job Board for Depositions & Official Subs” to connect with agency calendaring professionals seeking coverage. Some groups even flip the model—allowing reporters to post their availability so agencies can reach out to them. These peer-run boards have become a critical lifeline for independent contractors, especially in the post-pandemic era, where in-person networking has diminished and more reporters are working from home or across state lines.

However, unlike traditional job boards (e.g., Indeed or LinkedIn), Facebook groups have virtually no accountability. Administrators—often court reporters themselves—can remove members at will. And they do. In some cases, these removals come after disagreements over industry politics, differing business models, or personal vendettas. Reporters are often banned without warning, without due process, and without having violated any posted rules. The result? They are effectively blacklisted from that region’s primary source of freelance work.

“You’re Out”: No Explanation Needed

Let’s be clear: Facebook groups are considered “private,” and as such, admins have broad authority to control their membership. But when these groups function as de facto professional infrastructure, the stakes are much higher.

Imagine being removed from the one platform in your county where all civil deposition, motions, and trial jobs are posted, simply because you spoke up about unfair agency practices, refused to work for discounted rates, or posted something relevant but not job-related. Suddenly, you’re invisible. You’re deprived of the same economic access afforded to others. You may not have violated any rules—but that doesn’t matter. There is no HR department to appeal to. No regulator. No ombudsman. Only silence.

This isn’t just an inconvenience. It’s an economic penalty. It is restraint of trade—and in certain circumstances, it may cross the line into illegality.

Legal Theories: When Does Gatekeeping Become Unlawful?

The law has been slow to catch up with the way freelance labor is managed on social media, but here are several legal doctrines that could apply:

1. Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy

If an administrator removes you from a job board in order to interfere with your ability to receive work, and you can prove damages, you may have grounds for a civil lawsuit. Courts have recognized that intentional interference with prospective economic advantage—especially when malicious or retaliatory—can be actionable.

2. Discriminatory Exclusion

If removals are based on protected characteristics (race, age, disability, gender), they may violate anti-discrimination laws. Even in private groups, if they function as professional access points, they may be subject to scrutiny under civil rights statutes—particularly if the group is closely tied to employment functions.

3. Unfair Business Practices

In California and other states with robust consumer protection laws, courts have held that businesses—or those controlling access to marketplaces—cannot engage in deceptive, unfair, or exclusionary practices that harm competition or access.

4. Antitrust Implications

If multiple admins or group moderators coordinate to blacklist certain reporters—especially across regional groups or networks—this could potentially raise antitrust concerns. Collusion that limits access to jobs is a restraint of trade, and federal law prohibits this under the Sherman Act and Federal Trade Commission Act.

The Gatekeeper Class

There’s another insidious aspect to this: these groups are often run by a small cadre of well-connected reporters who operate as self-appointed power brokers. They decide who gets in, who stays out, and who thrives. Often, these same individuals are aligned with specific agencies—or even run agencies themselves. The potential for conflict of interest is staggering.

In some cases, reporters have been removed simply for:

  • Expressing criticism of an agency’s rates or ethics,
  • Speaking up in support of labor rights,
  • Starting a competing business,
  • Associating with someone the admin personally dislikes.

This is not professionalism. This is clique culture masquerading as leadership—and it is harming the profession.

A Chilling Effect on Advocacy

Perhaps the most troubling impact of this digital gatekeeping is the chilling effect it has on whistleblowers and reformers. Reporters who speak out about wage theft, unethical practices, or the rise of ASR (automated speech recognition) often find themselves ostracized from job groups run by those sympathetic to the very practices being exposed.

This creates an industry where silence is rewarded, and truth-telling is punished. In a profession already under siege from AI, underbidding, and outsourcing, this kind of internal sabotage is deeply damaging.

What Can Be Done?

If you’ve been removed from a Facebook job group, you’re not powerless. Here are steps to take:

  1. Document everything — Keep screenshots, timestamps, and communication records.
  2. Report the group — Use Facebook’s reporting tools if removal was arbitrary, harassing, or discriminatory.
  3. Consult an attorney — If you’ve suffered financial harm, get legal advice about potential civil claims.
  4. Expose the practice — Shine a light on exclusionary gatekeeping. Write articles. Speak out.
  5. Create alternatives — Build job boards with transparency, fairness, and community moderation. Decentralize the power structure.

✅ YES — You Can Report Ethical Misconduct to the CRB

The California CRB enforces the Professional Standards of Practice for Certified Shorthand Reporters (CSRs). If the group admins hold California CSR licenses, and they are using their position to:

  • Block other licensed reporters from accessing work,
  • Retaliate against dissent,
  • Control the flow of business in a non-transparent way,
  • Favor their own agency or business interests, or
  • Coordinate blacklisting of other CSRs,

This could rise to the level of an ethical violation under the CRB’s jurisdiction.

CRB Violations That May Apply:

  • CCR Title 16 § 2475(b) – Unprofessional conduct includes, but is not limited to, any departure from or failure to conform to applicable laws, rules, or ethical standards.
  • § 2475(c)(1)-(7) – These subsections broadly cover:
    • Fraud or misrepresentation in business,
    • Abuse of authority or position,
    • Unlawful or deceptive business practices,
    • Engaging in conduct likely to harm the public trust in the profession.

❗ Key point: If a CSR is acting as a gatekeeper in a professional capacity (not purely social), and using that power to exclude others from the marketplace in bad faith, it could be reportable.

⚠️ Limitations of CRB Jurisdiction

However, the CRB cannot:

  • Investigate private non-licensees (e.g., unlicensed Facebook group moderators).
  • Enforce federal antitrust laws.
  • Mandate reinstatement into a Facebook group.

If the group admin is not a licensed CSR or if the group is informally structured without a business affiliation, it may fall outside the CRB’s direct reach.

But — if that group is used as a professional tool to control access to freelance assignments in California, and those admins are licensed CSRs, you may have a case.

🔁 How to Report to the CRB

  1. Prepare evidence:
    • Screenshots of removal or banning
    • Group rules (or lack thereof)
    • Examples of posts removed or retaliatory behavior
    • Names and license numbers of the individuals involved
    • Any documentation showing economic impact or collusion
  2. File a Complaint:
    Use the CRB complaint form:
    👉 https://www.courtreportersboard.ca.gov/consumers/complaint.shtml
  3. Write a clear narrative:
    • Explain how their actions are harming licensed professionals
    • Emphasize the economic consequences and lack of transparency
    • If applicable, state that this constitutes an unethical restraint of trade and abuse of position
  4. Follow up:
    CRB may contact you for an interview or clarification.

💼 Bonus: Report to the FTC or DOJ Antitrust Division

If multiple group admins or moderators are:

  • Blacklisting court reporters,
  • Coordinating to suppress competition, or
  • Blocking market access to favor their own businesses or affiliated agencies,

You may also consider reporting to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division.

These agencies investigate anti-competitive behavior, particularly in regulated professions or local monopolies.

🛑 Don’t Forget: You Can Report to Facebook, Too

If these private groups:

  • Block members for retaliatory or abusive reasons,
  • Are run by people with conflicts of interest, or
  • Violate Facebook’s Community Standards (harassment, exclusion, business fraud),

You can report the group directly to Facebook. Enough complaints can lead to admin review, suspension, or even group deletion.

🧩 Strategic Summary

ActionTargetBest Used When
CRB ComplaintCalifornia-licensed CSRsAdmin is a CSR using their license to retaliate, block access, or promote unfair competition
FTC/DOJ ReportAntitrust enforcementEvidence of group collusion, market control, or blacklisting across regions
Facebook ReportPlatform abuseUnprofessional conduct, bullying, or misuse of a professional group
Public ExposureArticles, social media, etc.To raise awareness and pressure admins or agencies to act ethically

If we allow professional access to be governed by social media cliques and unchecked power dynamics, we surrender the integrity of our field to popularity contests. Licensing exists to ensure competence, fairness, and accountability—not to give a few insiders the keys to the kingdom.

If the CRB won’t act on this now, maybe it’s time we demand that they do.

We Deserve Better

Court reporters are not disposable labor. We are licensed professionals entrusted with preserving the record. We deserve access to work that is free from bias, retaliation, and favoritism. It’s time to call out the quiet tyranny of Facebook job group gatekeeping for what it is: a professional barrier, an economic injustice, and a systemic risk to the integrity of our field.

If we don’t fight for fairness within our own ranks, how can we expect others—agencies, legislators, tech platforms—to respect the value we bring?

We must do better. And it starts by demanding transparency and equal access—for all.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

  • The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
  • Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

2 thoughts on ““Digital Gatekeeping: How Facebook Job Boards Are Quietly Controlling Access to Court Reporting Jobs—and Why It May Be Illegal””

Leave a reply to Jonnell Agnew Cancel reply