Ivanka Trumps Endorsement Of Goya Foods Puts Her In Serious Legal Trouble

[Nostra]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

You clowns are really having to scrape the bottom of the barrel for your pissy pants outrages.

 

[martybegan]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

It isn't clear as day, and you can't back it up with a similar case.

She would have to follow the rules if she posted as her position, and the account clearly says she is not posting as her position.

In this case she didn't USE her position.

You can't use your position and then claim you aren't using it. That makes no sense.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

 

[colfax_m]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

You clowns are really having to scrape the bottom of the barrel for your pissy pants outrages.

Here's pissy pants outrage. Trump is claiming that a wall built by his supporters on the southern border was only done to hurt him because it's a pile of junk.

Trump rips private Texas border wall built by his supporters

HOUSTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Sunday criticized a privately built border wall in South Texas that’s showing signs of erosion months after going up, saying it was “only done to make me look bad,” even though the wall was built after a months-long campaign by his supporters...

www.snopes.com

That's why pissy pants looks like.

 

[kaz]

False dichotomy fallacy. Either all endorsement benefit the company or none do. The simpleton mind of the left.

You didn't ask if endorsements benefit companies in general, you asked if this endorsement benefited Goya. The left already did that benefit with their racist attacks against Goya. The deed was done, they were going to benefit. Ivanka was just having some fun

No one seriously believes that endorsements aren't beneficial for the product. This is not a serious argument. That's why the law states that you shouldn't endorse products.

False dichotomy fallacy. I just explained it to you and you did it again

 

[colfax_m]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

It isn't clear as day, and you can't back it up with a similar case.

She would have to follow the rules if she posted as her position, and the account clearly says she is not posting as her position.

In this case she didn't USE her position.

You can't use your position and then claim you aren't using it. That makes no sense.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

Her title appears on her account, so she is indeed using it.

 

[colfax_m]

False dichotomy fallacy. Either all endorsement benefit the company or none do. The simpleton mind of the left.

You didn't ask if endorsements benefit companies in general, you asked if this endorsement benefited Goya. The left already did that benefit with their racist attacks against Goya. The deed was done, they were going to benefit. Ivanka was just having some fun

No one seriously believes that endorsements aren't beneficial for the product. This is not a serious argument. That's why the law states that you shouldn't endorse products.

False dichotomy fallacy. I just explained it to you and you did it again

It's not a false dichotomy. It's apparent that endorsement of products is to provide a benefit to that product. Why else would someone endorse a product? This is absurd.

 

[kaz]

Counseling is also an option in the law, all the remedies are administrative. It's not a criminal offense.

.

True. Repeat offenders like Kellyanne Conway should be dismissed.

On the other hand, you're perfectly fine with Hillary selling slots on her SoS calendar for actual cash money to the point that's how you got on her calendar.

You're also fine with the Biden crime family selling influence to Ukraine and China.

This indignation is clearly feigned

 

[martybegan]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

It isn't clear as day, and you can't back it up with a similar case.

She would have to follow the rules if she posted as her position, and the account clearly says she is not posting as her position.

In this case she didn't USE her position.

You can't use your position and then claim you aren't using it. That makes no sense.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

Her title appears on her account, so she is indeed using it.

She also says the account is hers, not of her position, so she is not "using" it.

I have a feeling my position would in in any hearing held over this.

 

[Nostra]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

You clowns are really having to scrape the bottom of the barrel for your pissy pants outrages.

Here's pissy pants outrage. Trump is claiming that a wall built by his supporters on the southern border was only done to hurt him because it's a pile of junk.

Trump rips private Texas border wall built by his supporters

HOUSTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Sunday criticized a privately built border wall in South Texas that’s showing signs of erosion months after going up, saying it was “only done to make me look bad,” even though the wall was built after a months-long campaign by his supporters...

www.snopes.com

That's why pissy pants looks like.

See.

Thanks for proving my point.

IMPEACH!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

22 pages over this non issue. The Marxist left is desperate, and funny, in a sick sort of way.

 

[Nostra]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

It isn't clear as day, and you can't back it up with a similar case.

She would have to follow the rules if she posted as her position, and the account clearly says she is not posting as her position.

In this case she didn't USE her position.

You can't use your position and then claim you aren't using it. That makes no sense.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

Her title appears on her account, so she is indeed using it.

Since you get outraged over titles.................do you agree with the title of this thread? If not, where is your outrage, Pissy Pants Boi?

 

[JustAGuy1]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

It isn't clear as day, and you can't back it up with a similar case.

She would have to follow the rules if she posted as her position, and the account clearly says she is not posting as her position.

In this case she didn't USE her position.

You can't use your position and then claim you aren't using it. That makes no sense.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

Her title appears on her account, so she is indeed using it.

Since you get outraged over titles.................do you agree with the title of this thread? If not, where is your outrage, Pissy Pants Boi?

I really do feel sorry for the guy.

 

[colfax_m]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

It isn't clear as day, and you can't back it up with a similar case.

She would have to follow the rules if she posted as her position, and the account clearly says she is not posting as her position.

In this case she didn't USE her position.

You can't use your position and then claim you aren't using it. That makes no sense.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

Her title appears on her account, so she is indeed using it.

Since you get outraged over titles.................do you agree with the title of this thread? If not, where is your outrage, Pissy Pants Boi?

I don't agree. The title says that it puts her in serious legal trouble.

It's not that serious.

 

[colfax_m]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

It isn't clear as day, and you can't back it up with a similar case.

She would have to follow the rules if she posted as her position, and the account clearly says she is not posting as her position.

In this case she didn't USE her position.

You can't use your position and then claim you aren't using it. That makes no sense.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

Her title appears on her account, so she is indeed using it.

She also says the account is hers, not of her position, so she is not "using" it.

I have a feeling my position would in in any hearing held over this.

The fact that it appears in her title is her using it. You can't claim you're not using something after using it. It makes no sense.

 

[colfax_m]

Counseling is also an option in the law, all the remedies are administrative. It's not a criminal offense.

.

True. Repeat offenders like Kellyanne Conway should be dismissed.

On the other hand, you're perfectly fine with Hillary selling slots on her SoS calendar for actual cash money to the point that's how you got on her calendar.

You're also fine with the Biden crime family selling influence to Ukraine and China.

This indignation is clearly feigned

I'm more concerned about things that actually happened instead of things you invented.

 

[Nostra]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

It isn't clear as day, and you can't back it up with a similar case.

She would have to follow the rules if she posted as her position, and the account clearly says she is not posting as her position.

In this case she didn't USE her position.

You can't use your position and then claim you aren't using it. That makes no sense.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

Her title appears on her account, so she is indeed using it.

Since you get outraged over titles.................do you agree with the title of this thread? If not, where is your outrage, Pissy Pants Boi?

I don't agree. The title says that it puts her in serious legal trouble.

It's not that serious.

Odd that you have had no issue with it until called out.

 

[OKTexas]

She did it because Goya’s owner praised Trump. We both know it. If you don’t admit it, it’s because you’re too afraid to.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Prove Ivanka owns Goya stock

I have no idea if she does and it doesn't matter.

You said she profited. Obviously it does matter if she owns Goya stock since she doesn't work for them and wasn't paid for the endorsement, yet you claimed she profited.

So basically you just lied ... again ...

I never said she profited. If you think I did, feel free to show me.

Otherwise I believe you're lying.

Then she violated nothing, because the statute repeatedly says there must be a gain.

Does her endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Doesn't matter. That isn't addressed in the statute, Stupid.

Yes, it is. Does endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Quote the part that says that. Be careful, because you told us the part that says the endorsement must be for "private gain" isn't really applicable. I'm curious to see how you back track and attempt to now make it applicable to a company.

GO!

The part that says for the employee's "own private gain" isn't applicable. The part that says they're not allowed to endorse products is. Endorsing products provides a gain for the company with the product.

Here's the quote:
(c) Endorsements. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise except:

From her twitter page:

Wife, mother, sister, daughter. Advisor to POTUS on job creation + economic empowerment, workforce development & entrepreneurship. Personal Pg. Views are my own

Clearly states this as a personal page, not in her capacity as a government "official"

This is why most sites probably say "may have violated" instead of just "violated"

Except she listed her job position as a government employee, which violates the rules. It's pretty clear.

From the law:
(c) Endorsements. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise except:

From the law:


§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain,

5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.

www.law.cornell.edu

Example 4:
An Assistant Attorney General may not use his official title or refer to his Government position in a book jacket endorsement of a novel about organized crime written by an author whose work he admires. Nor may he do so in a book review published in a newspaper.

Read this example. This example says it's against the rules for the assistant attorney general to endorse a book about someone else. It doesn't matter if the assistant attorney general sees a gain himself, but the author does.

Last I heard the DOJ is an agency, the WH Office, not so much.

.

 

[martybegan]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

It isn't clear as day, and you can't back it up with a similar case.

She would have to follow the rules if she posted as her position, and the account clearly says she is not posting as her position.

In this case she didn't USE her position.

You can't use your position and then claim you aren't using it. That makes no sense.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

Her title appears on her account, so she is indeed using it.

She also says the account is hers, not of her position, so she is not "using" it.

I have a feeling my position would in in any hearing held over this.

The fact that it appears in her title is her using it. You can't claim you're not using something after using it. It makes no sense.

She wasn't using her title to endorse the product. The title block clearly states that the account is her personal one, and not part of her position.

I would win this 100%.

 

[colfax_m]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

It isn't clear as day, and you can't back it up with a similar case.

She would have to follow the rules if she posted as her position, and the account clearly says she is not posting as her position.

In this case she didn't USE her position.

You can't use your position and then claim you aren't using it. That makes no sense.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

Her title appears on her account, so she is indeed using it.

Since you get outraged over titles.................do you agree with the title of this thread? If not, where is your outrage, Pissy Pants Boi?

I don't agree. The title says that it puts her in serious legal trouble.

It's not that serious.

Odd that you have had no issue with it until called out.

Whatever you say.

 

[colfax_m]

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

It isn't clear as day, and you can't back it up with a similar case.

She would have to follow the rules if she posted as her position, and the account clearly says she is not posting as her position.

In this case she didn't USE her position.

You can't use your position and then claim you aren't using it. That makes no sense.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

Her title appears on her account, so she is indeed using it.

She also says the account is hers, not of her position, so she is not "using" it.

I have a feeling my position would in in any hearing held over this.

The fact that it appears in her title is her using it. You can't claim you're not using something after using it. It makes no sense.

She wasn't using her title to endorse the product. The title block clearly states that the account is her personal one, and not part of her position.

I would win this 100%.

Sure she is. If her title appears by the endorsement, then she's using it.