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.
… Continue Reading
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).
… Continue Reading
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
This website uses third party cookies, over which we have no control. To deactivate the use of third party advertising cookies, you should alter the settings in your browser.
