Recent Spam Litigation Activity in California Courts
In August 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Gordon v. Virtumundo, where it found that James Gordon did not have standing to sue under CAN-SPAM because he didn't suffer damage in the way a typical ISP would. Many, including myself, thought this would mean the end of spam litigation, at least the lawsuits brought by people who either are not really ISPs or who are nominally ISPs. Following this decision, courts in Washington have rejected a slew of cases, including many filed by Gordon himself.
However, there's been recent activity in California worth keeping an eye on. I blogged about this at Professor Goldman's Technology and Marketing Law blog:
However, there's been recent activity in California worth keeping an eye on. I blogged about this at Professor Goldman's Technology and Marketing Law blog:
For now at least, spam plaintiffs are not receiving as chilly of a reception in California courts as one would expect. We'll see what the future holds in store for them.First, a plaintiff took a spam case to trial and was awarded damages: "Plaintiff Wins $7000 Following Bench Trial on Claims Under California Anti-Spam Statute -- Balsam v. Trancos"
Second, a judge hearing a lawsuit against Reunion.com who earlier found the plaintiffs' claims preempted by CAN-SPAM reversed herself: "Reunion.com Revisited Again -- Claims Under CA Spam Law Not Preempted by CAN-SPAM -- Hoang v. Reunion.com"
Third, a court found that claims under the California spam statute brought by a small ISP (Asis Internet -- which has brought many different spam suits) against Subscriberbase Inc. were also not preempted: "N.D. Cal. Rejects Preemption and Standing Defenses Against Claims Under CA Spam Statute -- Asis Internet Servs. v. Subscriberbase Inc."
Comments