Here is an overview of the new ABA Formal Opinion 466. The Opinion itself is here.
It appears that the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has largely affirmed a number of opinions from state bars on the monitoring of jurors' internet presence. For the most part, these opinions have reached the reasonable conclusion that a lawyer is permitted to review a juror's internet presence as long as the lawyer does not initiate contact with the juror (e.g., sending a "friend" request or a request to connect). Anything that is publicly available or available to anyone on the same networking platform is free game.
The Opinion also addresses a topic that I've thought is a bit trickier. Namely, are lawyers permitted to review a juror's social media profile if the lawyer knows that the juror will learn that the lawyer has visited the juror's social media page? For example, LinkedIn users can see who has reviewed their profiles, so if a lawyer does not take steps to review a juror's LinkedIn profile anonymously (and there are ways to do it), a juror might learn that a lawyer has reviewed the juror's LinkedIn page. If so, does that constitute an impermissible contact under Rule 3.5? The Formal Opinion (reasonably in my view) says no: "The fact that a juror or a potential juror may become aware that a lawyer is reviewing his Internet presence when a network setting notifies the juror of such does not constitute a communication from the lawyer in violation of Rule 3.5(b)."
The Opinion also discusses some interesting issues relating to a lawyer's duty to report juror misconduct uncovered through the monitoring of the juror's internet presence.