School districts across the United States have found themselves navigating a social media-fueled controversy in recent weeks as supposed online sleuths sought to draw a link between a popular school photo company and the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein—a link the company says is nonexistent.
The social media accounts have alleged a connection between the well-connected financier and Lifetouch via the private equity owner of the photo company’s corporate parent. The association, however flimsy, has sparked widespread backlash and local campaigns for districts to sever ties with the photo company.
The controversy underscores the difficulty school districts face in responding to and fighting social media misinformation, particularly when it catches on with parents and community members.
Lifetouch’s CEO issued a lengthy public statement noting the company is not named in the Epstein files released by the U.S. Department of Justice and that the company doesn’t distribute student photos to anyone but families and schools.
The company also published an FAQ page that links to several media reports noting no evidence connecting Lifetouch and student photos to Epstein or his sex-trafficking operation.
“When Lifetouch photographers take your student’s picture, that image is safeguarded for families and schools, only, with no exceptions,” reads the statement from CEO Ken Murphy.
The attempts to link the company to the sex offender have their origins in references made in the Epstein files to Leon Black, the former CEO of Apollo Global Management, the private equity owner of Lifetouch parent Shutterfly.
Black has previously said he used Epstein for estate planning and personal tax work, and a company review found “no evidence” Black was involved in Epstein’s criminal activity nor that Epstein ever provided services to Apollo or invested in Apollo funds.
In addition, Apollo didn’t acquire Shutterfly until after Epstein’s death, Black stepped down five years ago, and Shutterfly is one of nearly 200 companies in Apollo’s fold, the Wall Street Journal reported.
“Neither Apollo nor its funds are involved in the day-to-day operations of Lifetouch and therefore no one employed by Apollo has ever had access to any student images,” Murphy said in his statement.
Still, the social media uproar about the perceived connection has led several districts to reexamine their use of Lifetouch.
Some schools rethink business with Lifetouch
Lifetouch is a giant in the school photo space, photographing more than 25 million students annually at more than 50,000 schools, according to the company. Lifetouch also makes school yearbooks.
Mt. Pleasant Area schools Superintendent Timothy Gabauer notified families in February that the Pennsylvania district had immediately canceled its contract with the company due to community members’ concerns.
“We felt strongly that moving in a different direction would be the most prudent decision and enable our families to maintain absolute confidence in the services and vendors we offer,” he wrote in a letter to families, according to local media reports.
Several Kentucky districts removed Lifetouch from their approved vendors lists, although a large cooperative in the state that represents more than 80 districts has since reinstated the company as a preferred vendor for school photos, saying there was “no evidence of current affiliations or business practices that would compromise student safety, data protection or district trust.”
Districts in Arkansas have also ended Lifetouch contracts in recent weeks.
Others, including the Harrison County, Ky., and Danbury, Conn., districts, have temporarily paused their use of Lifetouch as they investigate further. And leaders in Laurel County, Ky., and Prairie Grove, Ark., have told parents they can opt their children out of class photos while reiterating there have been no verified reports of Lifetouch’s association with Epstein.
The Malakoff, Texas, schools have opted to do school photos in-house with district staff for now.
Others have recommitted to relationship with company after fact-checking claims
Meanwhile, one New Jersey district has recommitted to working with Lifetouch following a review that leaders say found no wrongdoing by the company.
Many others are attempting to navigate the fallout by fact-checking the social media-fueled claims in public statements and through answers to FAQs posted to their websites, a challenge for leaders who must balance addressing parents’ concerns with dispelling the ever-increasing confusion that fast-spreading social media rumors can cause.
In a statement to Education Week, the National School Public Relations Association encouraged districts to “move forward in a way that provides clarity about both their actions and the reasoning behind them” as they communicate with families about Lifetouch.
District leaders should reiterate that students’ safety is their top priority and acknowledge parents’ concerns and questions, the NSPRA statement said.
“The approach should be guided by what will best maintain trust, whether through broad outreach to families or prepared responses to individual questions,” the statement said. “The goal of any communication is to ensure families feel informed, respected, and confident that student well-being remains the district’s top priority.”
Strong community trust needs to exist before problems arise
In general, school PR experts say much of the work to dispel rumors and calm tensions during high-profile controversies must happen well before a problem arises. Having a strong, preexisting foundation of trust with community members makes it easier to weather a controversy, Barbara Hunter, NSPRA’s executive director, told EdWeek last year.
It’s hard to build credibility in a crisis. So, districts should work to establish themselves as credible sources of information on an ongoing basis, she said.
The rapid spread of false information—a trend that is only intensifying—complicates district leaders’ work to establish this trust.
In a January 2024 survey of about 400 school communications officials conducted by NSPRA, 96% of respondents said the spread of misinformation was a problem, up from 81% in 2020, and 78% said their district had faced a challenge related to the spread of false information in the last 12 months.
Respondents identified Facebook and word-of-mouth as the most common sources of false information about their district.
Forty-one percent said false information was shared as part of a “deliberate, coordinated effort to deceive by people who knew the information to be untrue,” and 89% said they knew the identity of those who intentionally spread false information.
Some districts have established regularly updated, fact-checking websites as an ongoing strategy to respond to rumors and clear up misconceptions, Hunter previously told EdWeek.
Hunter also recommended that districts survey parents to determine weak spots in their communications strategies, and consider drafting talking points for employees who interact with the public regularly, like front-office staff, so they aren’t caught flat-footed when parents ask questions about rumors or raise concerns.
Districts can also ensure public statements are free from confusing jargon that’s easy to misinterpret and set Google alerts so schools can monitor media coverage.
