June 13, 2014

Firm Prevails on Summary Judgment Against Professional Spam Plaintiff Timothy Dewitt

By

On June 11, 2014, the firm prevailed on behalf of its client on its summary judgment motion in Alameda Superior Court in the case of Timothy Dewitt v. Devry University, Inc., et al., No. RG12638207.

In granting summary judgment to the defendants, the Court clarified how the California spam law applies to email “From” names. All of the 700-750 emails at issue contained a defendant’s brand name in the “From” name for each email. However, the plaintiff argued that the sending email addresses themselves were not “traceable” to a sender and as a result violated the California spam statute at Business & Professions Code §17529.5, under the case of Balsam v. Trancos, 203 Cal.App.4th 1083 (2012). The court disagreed, holding “that a header that identifies the businesses on whose behalf the email was sent falls within the exception to liability under sec. 17529.5(a)(2) even if the actual sender’s domain name is not traceable.”

The plaintiff also argued that the “From” name must identify the actual sender of the email, and not just the company being advertised. However, the court again disagreed, holding, “to the extent Plaintiff seeks to require email headers to identify both the business which authorized the email and the domain name of the third party authorized to transmit the email, his claim is subject to preemption [under the federal CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. §7701, et seq.].” The Court also noted that “state law requiring an email’s ‘from’ field to include the name of the person or entity who actually sent the email or who hired the sender constitutes a ‘content or labeling requirement’ that is clearly subject to preemption.”

“This summary judgment victory is important because it shuts down an argument that spam plaintiffs’ have been making for years,” commented attorney Karl Kronenberger. “Now we have a decision that clearly states that ‘From’ names that identify the advertiser do not violate the California spam statute, even if the actual sending domain names are untraceable.”

A copy of the summary judgment decision is here.

Related Practice Areas



Related articles

Spam Law

Firm Prevails on Summary Judgment Against Professional Spam

On June 11, 2014, the firm prevailed on behalf of its client on its summary judgment motion in Alameda Superior Court in the case of Timothy Dewitt v. Devry University...

Read Article

Spam Law

Ninth Circuit Affirms Kronenberger Rosenfeld’s Victory in Spam

On July 9, 2010 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a spam lawsuit, which had been filed against Azoogle.com Inc. and several other defendants. Kronenberger Rosenfeld represented Azoogle.com before...

Read Article

Spam Law

How Email Marketers Can Reduce the Risk of

Due to restrictive interpretations of the 2013 CAN-SPAM Act over the last decade, many spam plaintiffs find it more convenient to bring lawsuits instead under the California anti-spam law (CASL)—which...

Read Article

Spam Law

New California Spam Case Law Requires Traceable Domains

New spam case law in California is reshaping how many advertisers and publishers do business. Specifically, new case law has allowed spam plaintiff’s lawyers to argue that senders need to...

Read Article
Get the help you need.

We offer legal advice on a wide range of online topics

Get legal help now

Not seeing what you’re looking for?

Submit your case in 3 minutes and get legal help fast.

Submit your case online

OR

Give us a call
Join our mailing list

Stay ahead of legal matters

The internet moves fast. We'll keep you informed.