Email Spam Class Action Defense
When faced with a spam class action, turn to Kronenberger Rosenfeld: a firm that has been at the forefront of spam litigation.
Spam litigation can be costly for defendants, and when spam claim are brought as class actions, the risks increase significantly. Spam class actions are where the recipient of the email is not just suing on his/her behalf, but also on behalf of all others who received similar emails. Because businesses typically send out thousands if not millions of emails, and because spam laws may allow class members to recover up to $1,000 per email, spam class actions quickly become “bet-the-company” lawsuits.
We are aggressive and tech-savvy in our approach to combating what some call spam “shake-down” operations.
Kronenberger Rosenfeld has been at the forefront of defending spam litigation since the enactment of the spam laws and is responsible for groundbreaking rulings in this area. We have handled more than 100 separate spam law cases, including in both federal and state courts, brought by plaintiffs in California, Georgia, Washington, Ohio, Florida and other states. This is perhaps more than any other spam litigation defense law firm in the country. Most importantly, our firm has achieved excellent litigation results for our clients in spam litigation, reflected in victories at motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment, some who we defended and upheld on appeal. Our experience at the forefront of spam litigation translates directly into lower costs and top results for our clients.
When faced with a spam class action, it is essential that you engage experienced counsel immediately. You need a firm that is not only familiar with the relevant case law and the legislative history of the spam statute, but you also need a firm that understands the mechanics of the affiliate marketing industry and the applicable settlement points. Kronenberger Rosenfeld brings that experience.
- Represented merchant of personalized consumer goods in putative spam class action. The plaintiff alleged that the firm’s client had sent over 10,000 emails with deceptive subject lines, which falsely claimed that the recipients had received an award. The firm prevailed on its motion to dismiss the entire case with prejudice at the pleadings stage, which included a judicial opinion containing the most thorough discussion to date of unlawful subject lines.