Logout

Spam Defense Document Repository

INDEX

Falsity & Deception
Injury / Adverse Affects
Vagueness
Transcripts / Audio
Statutes of Limitation
Standing
Spam Plaintiffs Personal Jurisdiction
Preemption
Sanctions, Fee Awards, Costs



FALSITY & DECEPTION

Use of Multiple Domain Names not False & Deceptive

Plaintiff plead the use of multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters and blacklists. The court found that such activity is not false or deceptive under the California spam statute. Court dismissed with leave to amend. (p. 2)

       Balsam v. Subscriberbase, Inc., et. al.
       1-06-CV-066258
       Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California

Filing: Demurrer

Order (Motion | Opposition | Reply)

__________________________________________________________________________

Use of Multiple Domain Names not False & Deceptive

The court rejected plaintiff's argument that the use of muleipl domain names violates the California spam law. (p. 1)

       Balsam v. Expedite Media Group, Inc., et. al.
       1-06-CV-068304
       District Court for Central District of California

Filing: Describe the filing

Order (Motion | Opposition | Reply)

__________________________________________________________________________

Use of Multiple Domain Names not False & Deceptive

The Court found that the argument that the use of multiple domain names is false and deceptive, and violative of the California spam statute, is preempted by the federal CAN-SPAM statute (See *3.)

       Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp.
       2007 WL 1518650
       C.D Cal.

Filing: 12b6

Order (Motion | Opposition | Reply)

__________________________________________________________________________

Inaccurate IP Addresses in HELO Line Not False & Deceptive

The California legislature, in drafting the spam statute, did not intend to include the failure of a sender's TCP/IP address back to resolve back to the TCP/IP addresses listed in the sender's domain name registration details. (p. 18)

       Hypertouch, Inc. v. Stamps.com
       AAA No. 74 117 00953 04 SUBR
       AAA Arbitration

Decision: Final Award of Arbitrator

Final Award Decision (Motion | Opposition | Reply)



INJURY / ADVERSE AFFECTS

Complaint Silent on Actual Harm Dismissed

Complaint dismissed without prejudice because it was devoid of any assertions of actual harm dismissed under CAN-SPAM and the Washington Commercial Electronic Marketing Act ("CEMA"). (See p. 5.)

Complaint dismissed without prejudice because it did not plead the injury and causation, which are two of the five required elements of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. (See p. 5.)

       James S. Gordon, et. al., v. Subscriberbase Holdings, Inc. et. al.
       2:08-cv-05037-RHW
       District Court for the Eastern District of Washington

Filing: Motion to Dismiss; 12b6

Order (Motion | Opposition | Reply)

__________________________________________________________________________

Adverse Affects for Professional Plaintiffs Questions

The court addresses a variety of issues surrounding "adverse affects" and generally, whether or not injury must be significant.  The court also questions the standing of professional plainitffs.

    Gordon v. Virtumundo
    Appeal No. 07-35487
    Ninth Circuit Appeal

Audio File


VAGUENESS

Spam Complaint Must Include Details of Emails

Complaint dismissed without prejudice because it did not plead the number of emails at issue; the time frame during which emails were sent; the addresses and domain names that received the emails; and a brief summary of the factual basis upon which the plaintiff claims defendant sent the emails. (See p. 6.)

       James S. Gordon, et. al., v. Subscriberbase Holdings, Inc. et. al.
       2:08-cv-05037-RHW
       District Court for the Eastern District of Washington

Filing: Motion to Dismiss, 12(b)(6)

Order (Motion | Opposition | Reply)



TRANSCRIPTS

Small Claims Appeal Hearing

       James Wagner v. Intermark Media, Inc., et al
       No. 2-07-SC-004387
       Santa Clara County Small Claims Court

Date: June 18, 2007

Filing: Small Claims Trial

Transcript

__________________________________________________________________________

Small Claims Appeal Hearing

       James Wagner v. Intermark Media, Inc., et al
       No. 2-07-SC-004387
       Santa Clara County Small Claims Court

Date: November 18, 2008

Filing: Small Claims Appeal

Transcript

__________________________________________________________________________

Demurrer to Defendant's Cross-Complaint Hearing

       Vantage Interactive, LLC v. Joel Householter
       No. CGC-08-480288
       Superior Court of California, San Francisco

Date: December 26, 2008

Filing: Demurrer

Transcript
_________________________________________________________________________

Adverse Affects for Professional Plaintiffs Questions

The court addresses a variety of issues surrounding "adverse affects" and generally, whether or not injury must be significant.  The court also questions the standing of professional plainitffs.

    Gordon v. Virtumundo
    Appeal No. 07-35487
    Ninth Circuit Appeal

Audio File



STATUTES OF LIMITATION

One Year Statute of Limitation for California Spam Statute

The statute of limitation for the California spam statute (Section 17529.5) is one year. (p 4)

       Balsam v. Subscriberbase, Inc., et. al.
       1-06-CV-066258
       Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California

Filing: Summary Judgment Motion

Order (Motion | Opposition | Reply)



STANDING

Plaintff who was not addressee has no standing to sue.

Summary judgment granted to defendants where plaintiff lacked standing as the "recipient" under California's 17529.5 because he was not the "addressee" of the emails.  Furthermore, Plaintiff's claims for trespass to chattels failed because the emails did not impede plaintiff's business. 

       Infinite Monkeys v. Global Resource Sytems, Inc., et. al.
       01-05-CV-039918
       Santa Clara Superior Court, California

Filing: Summary Judgment

Order (Motion | Opposition | Reply)



GORDON

James S. Gordon, et. al., v. Subscriberbase Holdings, Inc. et. al.

Complaint dismissed without prejudice because it was devoid of any assertions of actual harm dismissed under CAN-SPAM and the Washington Commercial Electronic Marketing Act ("CEMA"). (See p. 5.)

Complaint dismissed without prejudice because it did not plead the injury and causation, which are two of the five required elements of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. (See p. 5.)

Complaint dismissed without prejudice because it did not plead the number of emails at issue; the time frame during which emails were sent; the addresses and domain names that received the emails; and a brief summary of the factual basis upon which the plaintiff claims defendant sent the emails. (See p. 6.)

       James S. Gordon, et. al., v. Subscriberbase Holdings, Inc. et. al.
       2:08-cv-05037-RHW
       District Court for the Eastern District of Washington

Filing: 12b6

Order (Motion | Opposition | Reply)

__________________________________________________________________________

James S. Gordon, Jr., v. Impulse Marketing Group, Inc.

The court denies the multiple motions to dismiss defendant Impulse Marketing's claim for injuctive relief.

       James S. Gordon, Jr., v. Impulse Marketing Group, Inc.
       No.  CV-04-5125-FVS
       District Court for the Eastern District of Washington

Date: March 9, 2006

Filing: Motions to Dismiss

Order (Motion | Opposition | Reply)




BALSAM

Daniel Balsam, v. Rapid Response Marketing, LLC

Rapid Response Marketing, LLC contends that the Daniel Balsam’s complaint should be dismissed or reclassified as limited civil action because Balsam failed to make a prior demand as required by California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 116.320; and because the claim falls outside the scope of Small Claims jurisdiction.

       Daniel Balsam v. Rapid Response Marketing, LLC
       No. 828275
       San Francisco Superior Court, California

Filing: Motion

Memorandum (Motion | Opposition | Reply)

***