Spam
Spam
Cumulative Supplement
Cases:
Mere allegation that senders of unsolicited e-mails failed to remove Internet access service provider within ten days of telephone call to senders' general counsel failed to state claim for violation of e-mail removal provisions of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM Act); provider needed to allege pattern or practice. CAN-SPAM Act, §§ 5(a)(3)(A), (4)(A), 7(g)(1), 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 7704(a)(3)(A), (4)(A), 7706(g)(1). Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc., 469 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2006); West's Key Number Digest, Telecommunications 1343.
Inaccuracies in e-mail headers referring to non-functional e-mail address as sender and an Internet domain not linked to sender did not make the headers materially false or materially misleading and, therefore, did not violate the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM Act); the e-mails contained a link on which the recipient could click in order to be removed from future mailings, contained a separate link to sender's website, prominently displayed a toll-free number to call, and listed a Florida mailing address and local phone number for the sender, and several places in each header referred to the sender's domain name. CAN-SPAM Act, §§ 5(a)(1, 6), 15 U.S.C.A. § 7704(a)(1, 6). Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc., 469 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2006); West's Key Number Digest, Telecommunications 1343.
Appropriation of internet identity: Internet site operators' use of Internet service provider's "aol.com" domain name in sending unauthorized bulk e-mails to provider's customers violated Virginia Computer Crimes Act's prohibition against use of computer or computer network without authority and with the intent to convert the property of another. Va. Code 1950, § 18.2-152.3, subd. 3. America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444 (E.D. Va. 1998); West's Key Number Digest, Telecommunications 461.15.
Unsolicited e-mail: California's statute governing unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE), which prohibits transmission of deceptive and misleading unsolicited commercial e-mail by requiring disclosure of advertising and/or adult nature of such e-mail, and by establishing a simple way of identifying UCE without having to read it first, does not unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce, and thus does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution; the act does not directly regulate commerce occurring wholly outside State, but expressly applies only to e-mail users who send UCE to California residents by equipment located in California, the act serves legitimate local purpose of protecting state's citizens from economic damage caused by deceptive UCEs, and to extent the act requires truthfulness in advertising, it does not burden interstate commerce at all, but actually facilitates it by eliminating fraud and deception. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3; West's Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17538.4. Ferguson v. Friendfinders, Inc., 94 Cal. App. 4th 1255, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 258 (1st Dist. 2002), as modified, (Jan. 14, 2002) and review denied, (Apr. 10, 2002); West's Key Number Digest, Telecommunications 462.
E-mail recipient's claim against out-of-state internet marketing company and its president for alleged violations of the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act (MCEMA) were based on company's action in sending e-mails to recipient in Maryland, and thus, company's alleged contacts with Maryland were related to the operative facts of the case as was required for Maryland courts to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over company and president. West's Ann.Md.Code, Commercial Law, § 14-3001. MaryCLE, LLC v. First Choice Internet, Inc., 166 Md. App. 481, 890 A.2d 818 (2006); West's Key Number Digest, Corporations 665(1).
Oregon resident's commercial spam email to Washington residents in which subject line read: "Did I get the right e-mail address?" and "For your review-HANDS OFF!" when body of email consisted of unsolicited advertisement to purchase his product, was misleading, and thus, statute prohibiting transmission of deceptive emails was not unconstitutionally overbroad under First Amendment; subject line was clearly meant to entice recipient into believing that message might be from friend, acquaintance, or business contact who was sending confidential email. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1; West's RCWA 19.190.020(2). State v. Heckel, 122 Wash. App. 60, 93 P.3d 189 (Div. 1 2004); West's Key Number Digest, Federal Civil Procedure 90.3.