Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30809018/Asis-Internet-v-Member-Source-Media-N-D-Cal-Apr-20-2010
Timestamp: 2014-07-31 02:20:11
Document Index: 640917067

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7704', '§ 17529', '§ 17529', '§ 17529', '§ 7707', '§17529', '§ 17529', '§ 7707', '§17529']

Asis Internet v. Member Source Media (N.D. Cal.) (Apr 20, 2010)
P. 1Asis Internet v. Member Source Media (N.D. Cal.) (Apr 20, 2010)Asis Internet v. Member Source Media (N.D. Cal.) (Apr 20, 2010)Ratings: (0)|Views: 247
|Likes: 4Published by Venkat BalasubramaniCourt finds that header information based spam claims are preempted by CAN-SPAM, but subject line claims are not. Court finds that header information based spam claims are preempted by CAN-SPAM, but subject line claims are not. More info:Categories:Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: Venkat Balasubramani on May 02, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30809018/Asis-Internet-v-Member-Source-Media-N-D-Cal-Apr-20-201009/07/2010pdftextoriginal U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAASIS INTERNET SERVICES,Plaintiff,v.MEMBER SOURCE MEDIA, LLC,Defendant.___________________________________/ No. C-08-1321 EMC
ORDER RE CROSS-BRIEFS REPREEMPTION(Docket Nos. 80-81)
Plaintiff Asis Internet Services, a California corporation, filed suit against DefendantMember Source Media, LLC (“MSM”), a California limited liability corporation. The complaintalleged two causes of action: (1) that MSM violated §§ 7704(a)(1), (2) and 7704(b)(1), (2) of Title15 of the United States Code, also known as the Controlling the Assault of Non-SolicitedPornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (“CAN-SPAM Act”), and (2) that MSM violated § 17529.5of the California Business and Professions Code. On January 28, 2010, this Court dismissed, withprejudice, Asis’s first cause of action under the CAN-SPAM Act based on lack of standing.
Docket No. 79 (order). The Court subsequently requested that the parties brief the issue of whetherthe CAN-SPAM Act preempts the remaining state claim.Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oralargument of counsel and all other evidence of record, the Court hereby finds that the CAN-SPAMAct preempts in part Asis’s § 17529.5 claim. The Court dismisses the preempted portion of theclaim and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the non-preempted portion.
Case3:08-cv-01321-EMC Document86 Filed04/20/10 Page1 of 10
On January 28, 2010, the Court granted MSM’s motion to dismiss the federal claim under theCAN-SPAM Act based on lack of standing.
Docket No. 79 (order).2
Asis claims that MSM violated the CAN-SPAM Act and § 17529.5 when MSM sent 5,006commercial electronic mail messages (e-mails) to Asis’s servers containing (1) “header informationthat was materially false or misleading” and (2) “subject line[s] that a person would know would belikely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material factregarding the contents of the message.” Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11. The primary issue here is whether theCAN-SPAM Act preempts Asis’s state claim.
The CAN-SPAM Act contains a preemption provision which provides as follows:(1)In general. This chapter supersedes any statute, regulation, orrule of a State . . . that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail tosend commercial messages, except to the extent that any such statute,regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of acommercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto.(2)State law not specific to electronic mail. This chapter shall notbe construed to preempt the applicability of:(A)State laws that are not specific to electronic mail,including State trespass, contract, or tort law; or(B) other State laws to the extent that those laws related toacts of fraud or computer crime.15 U.S.C. § 7707(b)(1), (2). In short, the CAN-SPAM Act preempts any state statutes or regulationsthat regulate the use of e-mail for commercial messages, unless the statutes or regulationsspecifically prohibit “falsity or deception” in commercial e-mails.Section 17529.5 is a statute prohibiting the distribution of any e-mail advertisement that“contains falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information” or “has a subject line that a personknows would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about amaterial fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17529.5(a)(2), (3). Whether § 17529.5 is excepted from CAN-SPAM preemption hinges on theinterpretation of the phrase “falsity or deception” as used in § 7707(b)(1) --
, whether falsityand/or deception requires a showing of all the elements of common law fraud, namely,
Case3:08-cv-01321-EMC Document86 Filed04/20/10 Page2 of 10
The parties agree that Asis must, at a minimum, show that MSM made a materialmisrepresentation, that MSM knew the misrepresentation was false, and that MSM intended to misleadAsis.3misrepresentation, knowledge of falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance, and resulting damage.
Lazar v. Super. Ct.
, 12 Cal. 4th 631, 638 (1996). This interpretation is critical because §17529.5 does not require the reliance and damages elements.
See Asis Internet Services v.Consumerbargaingiveaways, LLC , 622 F. Supp. 2d 935, 941 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (stating that“[s]ection 17529.5 does not . . . purport to require reliance or actual damages ”). Further, Asisconcedes that it would be unable to prove reliance or damages, although it contends that it does notneed to.
Pl.’s Br. at 2. MSM, on the other hand, argues that all five elements must be met inorder for a state law clam to survive preemption.
Def.’s Br. at 5. Thus, the basic question forthe Court is whether Asis must plead reliance and damages in order for its claim to be excepted fromCAN-SPAM preemption.A.
In determining the issue at hand, the Court is guided by two well established principles: (1)“there is a presumption against supplanting ‘the historic police powers of the States’ by federallegislation ‘unless that [is] the clear and manifest purpose of Congress” and (2) “express preemptionstatutory provisions should be given narrow interpretation.”
, 575 F.3d1040, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr , 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996) and
Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Inst. v. Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n
, 410 F.3d 492, 496(9th Cir. 2005)).To date, there have been only two circuit court decisions interpreting the CAN-SPAMpreemption provision.
, 575 F.3d at 1040;
Omega World Travel, Inc. v.
/// /// /// /// /// Case3:08-cv-01321-EMC Document86 Filed04/20/10 Page3 of 10
Activity (3)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 thousand reads1 hundred readscantzler liked thisLoad more