A recent decision in the Western District of Washington broadly defines the reach of the private right of action under the federal CAN-SPAM statute. In that case, Haselton v. Quicken Loans Inc., W.D. Wash., C-07-1777, 10/14/08, the court held that a company had standing to sue alleged spammers even though it is not an Internet service provider (ISP) and does not provide e-mail accounts to its customers.
On May 12, 2008 the Federal Trade Commission issued its long awaited final set of rules under the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the “Act”). The rule: Modifies the term “sender” with respect to multi-advertiser e-mails; Clarifies the opt-out request process; Defines the term “person”; and Clarifies the meaning of “valid physical postal address” of the… Continue Reading
In a recent decision, the Northern District of California held that e-mail harvesting without permission may give rise to a cause of action under the California Penal Code and based on common law misappropriation. More striking, however, was the court’s ruling that the federal CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq., preempts two California anti-spam statutes. Facebook, Inc. v. ConnectU LLC, — F.Supp.2d —, 2007 WL 1514783 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
First CAN-SPAM Jury Conviction On January 12, 2007, Jeffrey Brett Goodin became the first person convicted by a jury of violating the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Using several compromised Earthlink accounts, Goodin perpetrated a phishing scheme by sending thousands of e-mails to America Online Users and requesting personal and credit card information. He and others then… Continue Reading