Spam Law Update
Transcript of Spam Law Update
![Page 1: Spam Law Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051520/5879bd331a28abb42a8b47e7/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Spam Law Update:Guidance for Advertisers, Networks, and
MailersKarl Kronenberger
Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP
![Page 2: Spam Law Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051520/5879bd331a28abb42a8b47e7/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Overview of the LawCAN-SPAM , 15 USC 7704(a)
Prohibitions:• Deceptive subject lines• Materially false or misleading header information
Requires:• Sender’s postal address• Notice that it is an advertisement / solicitation• Opt-out mechanism
Standing:• “Provider of Internet access service adversely affected” by a violation
of the Act
Damages:• Up to $300 per violation
![Page 3: Spam Law Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051520/5879bd331a28abb42a8b47e7/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Overview of the LawCal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5
Unlawful activities relating to commercial e-mail advertisements; additional remedies
(a) It is unlawful for any person or entity to advertise in a commercial e-mail advertisement either sent from California or sent to a California electronic mail address under any of the following circumstances:
(1) The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by a third-party's domain name without the permission of the third party.
(2) The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information. This paragraph does not apply to truthful information used by a third party who has been lawfully authorized by the advertiser to use that information.
(3) The e-mail advertisement has a subject line that a person knows would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message.
![Page 4: Spam Law Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051520/5879bd331a28abb42a8b47e7/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Overview of the LawWash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.190.020
19.190.020. Unpermitted or misleading electronic mail—Prohibition
(1) No person may initiate the transmission, conspire with another to initiate the transmission, or assist the transmission, of a commercial electronic mail message from a computer located in Washington or to an electronic mail address that the sender knows, or has reason to know, is held by a Washington resident that:
(a) Uses a third party's internet domain name without permission of the third party, or otherwise misrepresents or obscures any information in identifying the point of origin or the transmission path of a commercial electronic mail message; or
(b) Contains false or misleading information in the subject line.
(2) For purposes of this section, a person knows that the intended recipient of a commercial electronic mail message is a Washington resident if that information is available, upon request, from the registrant of the internet domain name contained in the recipient's electronic mail address.
![Page 5: Spam Law Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051520/5879bd331a28abb42a8b47e7/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
What is the State of Spam Law Today?
• CAN-SPAM v. State Spam Laws
• Momentum with Plaintiffs or Defendants?
• California v. Other States
![Page 6: Spam Law Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051520/5879bd331a28abb42a8b47e7/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Notable Cases
• Balsam v. Trancos, Inc.- 203 Cal.App.4th 1083 (2012)
• Rosolowski v. Guthy-Renker, LLC- 230 Cal.App.4th (2014)
![Page 7: Spam Law Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051520/5879bd331a28abb42a8b47e7/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Notable Cases
• Timothy Dewitt v. Devry University, Inc., et al.,
- No. A142444 (First Appellate District – Unpublished)
• Botranger v. Showmark Media, LLC, et al.,
- Case No. CV 14-01144 MMM (District Court for the Central District of California)
![Page 8: Spam Law Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051520/5879bd331a28abb42a8b47e7/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Notable Cases
• Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc.- District Court for District of Maryland, PJM-08-409 (2013)
• Wagner v. Spire Vision, LLC, et al.- District Court for the Northern District of California (2015), 2015 WL 876514
![Page 9: Spam Law Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051520/5879bd331a28abb42a8b47e7/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Current Tactics of Spam Plaintiffs
• Automated Systems to View, Download, Sort Bulk Email
• Aggregating Plaintiffs
• Focus on Advertisers and Networks, NOT the Actual Senders
• Settlements Do Not Exceed Costs of Litigation
![Page 10: Spam Law Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051520/5879bd331a28abb42a8b47e7/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Current Legal Arguments & Strategies of Spam Plaintiffs
• From Domains
• From Names
• Subject Lines
• WHOIS Records
• Venue Selection
• Veil Piercing
• Valuing Violations
• Preparation
• Identifying Affiliates
![Page 11: Spam Law Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051520/5879bd331a28abb42a8b47e7/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Best Practices for Advertisers, Networks and Senders
• From Email Domains: Confirm Permission
• From Names: Use Brands and DBAs
• Subject Lines: Match with Content of Email
• WHOIS Records: No Privacy
• Corporate Structure: Follow Formalities; Elaborate Structures Not Worth the Expense
![Page 12: Spam Law Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051520/5879bd331a28abb42a8b47e7/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
What are the Economics of Spam Litigation?
• Early Briefing: Motions to Dismiss, Demurrers
• Discovery Costs
• Class Action Litigation
• Extortion / Shake Down Tactics