Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/california-appeals-court-issues-importan-40134/
Timestamp: 2015-01-26 10:37:53
Document Index: 680419680

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\n17529', '§ 17529', '§ 7707', '§ 17529', '§ 17529', '§ 17529', '§ 17529', '§ 17529']

California Appeals Court Issues Important Ruling on Commercial E-mail | Loeb & Loeb LLP - JDSupra
anyone who advertises in a commercial e-mail that violates
the California statute, whether or not such advertiser has
knowledge of the violation.
The plaintiff in Hypertouch, Inc. v. ValueClick, Inc., provides
e-mail service to about 100 customers inside and outside
California. Hypertouch filed suit against defendants
ValueClick, various ValueClick subsidiaries and PrimaryAds,
claiming that they violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
17529.5(a) which provides:
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...
Download PDF The California Court of Appeal has held that California’s anti-spam statute (1) is not pre-empted by the federal CAN-SPAM Act, and (2) that it imposes strict liability for anyone who advertises in a commercial e-mail that violates the California statute, whether or not such advertiser has knowledge of the violation. The plaintiff in Hypertouch, Inc. v. ValueClick, Inc., provides e-mail service to about 100 customers inside and outside California. Hypertouch filed suit against defendants ValueClick, various ValueClick subsidiaries and PrimaryAds, claiming that they violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5(a) which provides: 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. . . . (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. Hypertouch claimed that e-mails sent by ValueClick affiliates contained deceptive “Subject” lines, such as “Get a $300 Gift Card FREE,” when in fact a consumer had to pay a fee or participate in more promotions offers to get the gift card. Hypertouch also alleged that e-mails sent by ValueClick affiliates contained falsified header information because the “From” or “To” fields did not accurately reflect the identity of the sender or recipient of the e-mail. The federal CAN-SPAM Act includes a provision that expressly pre-empts state statutes that regulate the use of commercial e-mail “except to the extent that any such statute … prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial [e-mail].” (15 U.S.C., § 7707, subd. (b)(1).) ValueClick argued that the CAN-SPAM Act pre-empts § 17529.5 because § 17529.5 does not require a plaintiff to establish each element of common law fraud. Although the trial court agreed with this argument and granted summary judgment to the defendants, the appeals court did not agree and reversed. After consulting the language of § 17529.5 and the CANSPAM Act and the legislative history of both laws, the court held that the CAN-SPAM Act’s pre-emption provision “was largely intended to target state statutes imposing content requirements on commercial e-mails, while leaving states free to regulate the use of deceptive practices in commercial e-mails in whatever manner they chose.” The court went on to make three important conclusions about California’s anti-spam statute: 1. Section 17529.5 does not require the plaintiff to show that the defendant actually made a false or deceptive statement; instead, § 17529.5 makes it unlawful for a person or entity “to advertise in a commercial advertisement” that contains any of the deceptive statements described in subdivisions (a)(1)-(3). Los Angeles New York Chicago Nashville Washington, DC Beijing www.loeb.com Advanced Media and Technology Law Advertising and Promotions Law ALEJanRuaryT 2011 California Appeals Court Issues Important Ruling on Commercial E-mail This publication may constitute "Attorney Advertising" under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and under the law of other jurisdictions.2. Section 17259.5 does not contain a “scienter” element: the statute makes an entity strictly liable for advertising in a commercial e-mail that violates the substantive provisions described in Section 17529.5(a) regardless of whether the entity knew that such e-mails had been sent or had any intent to deceive the recipient. 3. Section 17259.5 does not require the plaintiff to prove that it relied on the deceptive commercial e-mail message or that it incurred damages as a result of the deceptive message. This ruling provides a very broad interpretation of § 17529.5 that is likely to aid plaintiffs that bring suit under the statute and may complicate e-mail marketing campaigns that involve affiliates. The court summed up as follows: Section 17529.5 “permits a recipient of a deceptive commercial e-mail to bring suit regardless of whether they were actually mislead or harmed by the deceptive message. This ensures that the use of deceptive e-mail will not go unpunished merely because it failed to mislead its targets. Second, imposing strict liability on the advertisers who benefit from (and are the ultimate cause of) deceptive e-mails, forces those entities to take a more active role in supervising the complex web of affiliates who are promoting their products.” If you received this alert from someone else and would like to be added to the distribution list, please send an email to alerts@loeb.com and we will be happy to include you in the distribution of future reports. This alert is a publication of Loeb & Loeb and is intended to provide information on recent legal developments. This alert does not create or continue an attorney client relationship nor should it be construed as legal advice or an opinion on specific situations. Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we inform you that any advice contained herein (including any attachments) (1) was not written and is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalty that may be imposed on the taxpayer; and (2) may not be used in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. © 2011 Loeb & Loeb LLP. All rights reserved.Advanced Media and Technology Group KENNETH A. ADLER kadler @loeb.com 212.407.4284 PHILLIP E. ADLER padler @loeb.com 310.282.2260 ROBERT M. ANDALMAN randal man @loeb.com 312.464.3168 IVY KAGAN BIERMAN ibier man @loeb.com 310.282.2327 CHRISTIAN D. CARBONE ccar bone @loeb.com 212.407.4852 TAMARA CARMICHAEL tcar michael @loeb.com 212.407.4225 NATASHA CHAMILAKIS ncha milakis @loeb.com 212.407.4853 MARC CHAMLIN mcha mlin @loeb.com 212.407.4855 CRAIG A. EMANUEL cemanuel @loeb.com 310.282.2262 KENNETH R. FLORIN kfl orin @loeb.com 212.407.4966 RUPEN R. FOFARIA rf ofaria @loeb.com 312.464.3154 DANIEL D. FROHLING dfr ohling @loeb.com 312.464.3122 DAVID W. GRACE dgra ce@loeb.com 310.282.2108 MICHELLE Ontiveros GROSS mgr oss @loeb.com 212.407.4233 THOMAS A. GUIDA tguida @loeb.com 212.407.4011 NATHAN J. HOLE nh ole @loeb.com 312.464.3110 MELANIE J. HOWARD mhoward @loeb.com 310.282.2143 THOMAS P. JIRGAL tjirgal @loeb.com 312.464.3150 IEUAN JOLLY ij olly @loeb.com 212.407.4810 MICHAEL MALLOW mmall ow@loeb.com 310.282.2287 DOUGLAS N. MASTERS dmasters @loeb.com 312.464.3144 NERISSA COYLE MCGINN nmcginn @loeb.com 312.464.3130 ANNE KENNEDY MCGUIRE amcguire @loeb.com 212.407.4143 DOUGLAS E. MIRELL dmirell @loeb.com 310.282.2151 DANIEL G. MURPHY dmurphy @loeb.com 310.282.2215 DANIEL O’CONNELL OFFNER doffner @loeb.com 310.282.2252 SETH A. ROSE sr ose @loeb.com 312.464.3177 ROBERT MICHAEL SANCHEZ rsan chez @loeb.com 212.407.4173 ALISON POLLOCK SCHWARTZ as chwartz @loeb.com 312.464.3169 STEVE A. SEMERDJIAN sse merdjian @loeb.com 212.407.4218 BARRY I. SLOTNICK bsl otni ck@loeb.com 212.407.4162 BRIAN R. SOCOLOW bsocolow@loeb.com 212.407.4872 SHARON CERESNIE SORKIN ss orkin @loeb.com 312.464.3132 WALTER STEIMEL, JR. wstei mel @loeb.com 202.618.5015 AKIBA STERN astern @loeb.com 212.407.4235 JAMES D. TAYLOR jtayl or@loeb.com 212.407.4895 MICHAEL A. THURMAN mthur man @loeb.com 310.282.2122 JOHN T. m@loeb.com 212.407.4109 ROSA K. WALKER rwalker @loeb.com 212.407.4824 DREW WEINSTEIN dweinstein @loeb.com 212.407.4102 JILL WESTMORELAND jwest moreland @loeb.com 212.407.4019 MICHAEL P. ZWEIG mzweig @loeb.com 212.407.4960
Published In: Communications & Media Updates, Conflict of Laws Updates, Personal Injury Updates
Latest PostsOlem Shoe Corp. v. Washington Shoe Corp. - USCA, Eleventh Circuit, January 12, 2015 Davis v. Electronic Arts Inc. - USCA, Ninth Circuit, January 6, 2015