CAN-SPAM Preemption Doesn't Apply To Fraud...And More

CAN-SPAM Preemption Doesn’t Apply To Fraud…And More

This a spam case. Plaintiff sued, alleging violations of California’s spam statute with respect to 49 emails. Plaintiff alleged that defendants: register[ed] its domain names used to send spams to unregistered fictitious business names claiming their addresses to be boxes…

Yahoo! Scores Significant Win in Email-to-SMS Lawsuit

Yahoo! Scores Significant Win in Email-to-SMS Lawsuit

We’ve blogged a bunch about text spam lawsuits in general, and about those against Yahoo! as well. Most recently, a judge denied Yahoo!’s request to dismiss a lawsuit relating to IM-to-SMS functionality. (See “TCPA Claim Over Yahoo!’s IM to SMS…

TCPA Claim Over Yahoo!'s IM to SMS Messaging Survives Summary Judgment

TCPA Claim Over Yahoo!’s IM to SMS Messaging Survives Summary Judgment

Yahoo! offers instant message users the ability to receive a text message notification of an instant message. A customer received two messages, and sued for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The court denies Yahoo!’s motion for summary judgment….

Court Won't Order Google To Lift Manual Block For 'Thin Content'--ICF v. Google

Court Won’t Order Google To Lift Manual Block For ‘Thin Content’–ICF v. Google

ICF provides web hosting services to hundreds of pornography websites. Google allegedly manually blocked these sites for spam, characterizing them as having “thin content,” which Google defines as “providing internet content that has little or no value to end-users.” The…

Court Accepts Narrow View of CAN-SPAM Preemption but Ultimately Dismisses Claims – Davison Design v. Riley

Court Accepts Narrow View of CAN-SPAM Preemption but Ultimately Dismisses Claims – Davison Design v. Riley

This is a lawsuit over spam emails. I know, it’s 2013, but bear with me. Riley sent a demand letter alleging that numerous emails sent by or on behalf of plaintiff violated California’s spam statute. Plaintiff turned around and filed…

It's Illegal For Offline Retailers To Collect Email Addresses--Capp v. Nordstrom

It’s Illegal For Offline Retailers To Collect Email Addresses–Capp v. Nordstrom

The California Supreme Court issued a decision a couple of years ago holding that a zip code is “personal identification information” under the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1974, making it illegal for retailers to ask consumers to provide zip…

Spam Arrest’s Sender Agreement Fails Because Email Marketer’s Employees Lacked Authority–Spam Arrest v. Replacements (Forbes Cross-Post)

By Eric Goldman Spam Arrest LLC v Replacements Ltd., 2013 WL 4675919 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2013) People hate receiving spam, but most people stopped obsessing about spam a decade ago or more. In the interim, anti-spam filters have improved…

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Case Update – Summer 2013 Edition

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani] There are a ton of TCPA cases out there. I don’t have the resources to track all of them, but here are a few that came up on my radar screen over the past few months….

Another Spam Litigation Factory Unravels –- Beyond Systems v. Kraft

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani] Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., PJM 08-409 (D.Md. Aug. 12, 2013). We keep blogging significant spam cases, but in recent years we’ve noted the decrease in spam litigation (perhaps owing to a shift in…

Independent Contractor Relationship Between Sender and Advertiser Dooms Spam Claims – Kramer v. NCS

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani] Kramer v. NCS, 12-1956 (8th Cir. May 28, 2013) Kramer, who operated an internet service provider in Clinton, Iowa, filed an ambitious–and as it turned out, ultimately quixotic–lawsuit over spam emails. He initially sued 300 unnamed…