Click the comments link on any
story to see comments or add your own.
Subscribe to this blog
Home :: Email
17 Sep 2010
I'm working on a project to build a high quality online spam law archive.
Finding the statutes is easy enough, but in the US you need case law
So what are the most important spam related court decisions?
Ones that occur to me include:
- Gordon v. Virtumundo (9th circuit sets very high bar to CAN SPAM standing)
- Omega World v. Mummagraphics (falsity must be material)
- White Buffalo Ventures v. University of Texas at Austin (OK per 1st amendment
for government to filter when acting as ISP rather than regulator)
- Intel v. Hamidi (spam is not trespass without real damages)
- Asis v. Optin Global/Azoogle (courts don't like sloppy serial plaintiffs)
- Pallorium v. Jared (CDA protects anti-spam blacklists, state court
- e360 v. Comcast (CDA protects spam filtering in general, federal court)
- Cyberpromo v. AOL (old, but still the case that says there's no 1st
amendment right to have e-mail delivered)
What else should I include?
posted at: 22:40 :: permanent link to this entry ::
comments... (Jump to the end to add your own comment)
I'd suggest considering adding in White Buffalo Ventures v. University of Texas at Austin (allowing spam filtering by government agencies)
(by Mickey Chandler
17 Sep 2010 22:31)
good thought re white buffalo
If it looks like people are suggesting cases I already listed, that's because I edited their suggestions into the post
(by John L
17 Sep 2010 22:41)
State v. Heckel, 143 Wash.2d 824, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001) (statute prohibiting misrepresentation in the subject line or transmission path of any commercial e-mail message sent to Washington residents or from a Washington computer does not unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce), later proceeding, 122 Wash. App. 60, 93 P.3d 189 (2004), review denied, 153 Wash. 2d 1021, 108 P.3d 1229 (2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 387 (2005) .
Jaynes v. Commonwealth of Va., 276 Va. 443, 666 S.E.2d 303 (Va.,2008) (anti-spam statute that criminalized all falsification of email origin statute is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face because it prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails including protected First Amendment speech).
(by Michael Froomkin
18 Sep 2010 21:21)
A few more important cases.
U.S. v. Kilbride 584 f.3d 1240. That inserting false from information or using false whois information, or using private whois information, is a violation of the CAN-SPAM Act.
Asis v. Consumerbargaingiveaways 62. F. Supp. 2d 935, Asis v. Vistaprint, 617 F.Supp 2d 989, and Asis v. Subscriberbase 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 33645 all say that you don't need fraud under the California law to avoid CAN-SPAM Preemption.
(by Bill Silverstein
20 Sep 2010 13:30)
Balsam v. Trancos, Inc., 203 Cal. App. 4th 1083 (2012) recently found that CAN-SPAM does not preempt Cal. Bus. & Prof. Section 17529.5
(by Timothy Walton
20 Apr 2012 19:02)
Add your comment...
Note: all comments require an email address to send a confirmation
to verify that it was posted by a person and not a spambot.
The comment won't be visible until you click the link in the
Unless you check the box below, which almost nobody does, your email
won't be displayed, and I won't use it for other purposes.
My other sites
Who is this guy?
Airline ticket info
Remembering JD Falk - 10 years later
223 days ago
A keen grasp of the obvious
New Hope for the Dead
465 days ago
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
Network Abuse Clearinghouse