Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp.

Last updated
Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp.
CourtSupreme Court of California
Full case nameCraig E. KLEFFMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
DecidedJune 21, 2010
Citation(s) 232 P.3d 625
Holding
Question answered
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingCHIN, GEORGE, KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, MORENO, CORRIGAN

Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 232 P.3d 625 (Cal. 2010), is a 2010 Supreme Court of California case certified by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The decision ruled that sending unsolicited advertisement emails (commonly known as "spam") using multiple domain names was not unlawful under California Business and Professions Code section 17529.5, subdivision (a)(2), which made it unlawful to advertise in a commercial email advertisement that contained or was accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information. [1]

Contents

Background

In March 2007, plaintiff Craig E. Kleffman filed this class action in California state court against defendants Vonage Holdings Corp., Vonage America, Inc., and Vonage Marketing, Inc. (Vonage), asserting a claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17529.5, subdivision (a)(2) (section 17529(a)(2)), which makes it unlawful to advertise in a commercial email if the advertisement contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information. The plaintiff received 11 unsolicited email advertisements. Although they were able to be tracked back to a Vonage's marketing agent, each email contained a different domain name, from which people cannot tell it was sent from Vonage. According to Kleffman, Vonage's use of these multiple domain names reduced the likelihood that emails were filtered out as spam. Kleffman asserted that Vonage's use of multiple domain names to bypass spam filters, its failure to use a single domain name in sending its advertisements, and its failure to identify Vonage in the domain name from which the advertisements were sent constituted falsified and misrepresented header information prohibited by section 17529.5(a)(2). [1]

Vonage removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the complaint. In May 2007, United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the action. The court ruled that the claim failed under the plain language of section 17529.5(a)(2). [1] [2]

Kleffman appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit asked the Supreme Court of California the following question: Does sending unsolicited commercial email advertisements from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters constitute falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information under section 17529.5(a)(2)? [1] [3]

The Supreme Court of California granted the Ninth Circuit's request. [1]

Defendant's argument

Vonage argued that header information was not "misrepresented" within the meaning of section 17529.5(a)(2) unless it contained "a false representation of fact" because it was the established definition of the term "misrepresent" according to the tort of misrepresentation. Thus, according to Vonage, their email advertisements, whose header information was fully accurate and traceable, did not violate section 17529.5(a)(2). [1]

Plaintiff's argument

Kleffman argued "misrepresented" header information must encompass something in addition to a false statement of fact because section 17529.5(a)(2) already prohibited "falsified" header information. Then, referring to other statutory provisions in the false advertising sections of the Business and Professions Code that prohibited false or misleading advertising, he asserted that the court should construe the term "misrepresent" to give a "misleading" representation or idea. He stated that this construction fitted in the dictionary meaning of the term "misrepresent" and complied with the legislative history. By constructing this way, according to Kleffman, sending of email ads with random, varied, garbled and nonsensical nature of the multiple domain names could violate section 17529.5(a)(2) because it created the misleading impression that these ads were from different entities. [1]

Court opinion

The court agreed with the defendant's opinion and held that sending commercial email advertisements from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters is not unlawful under section 17529.5(a)(2). More specifically, the court found that a single email with an accurate and traceable domain name neither contains nor was accompanied by misrepresented header information within the meaning of section 17529.5(a)(2) merely because its domain name was random, varied, garbled, and nonsensical. According to the court, absent a misrepresentation of header information, using a given domain name could not violate section 17529.5(a)(2) even if the sender intended to bypass the spam filters. [1] The reasoning was as follows:

Kleffman tried to construct the section 17529.5(a)(2) by defining the term misrepresent as giving a misleading representation or idea. Pertaining to this construction, the court pointed out that the Business and Professions Code used each of the terms of "misrepresent" and "mislead" in expressing a different meaning; thus defining the term "misrepresent" by the term "mislead" was contradictory even though some lay dictionaries did that. [1]

Kleffman also asserted that the relevant legislative history supported his construction by relying on a legislative analysis of a subsequent bill that amended section 17529.5(a)(2) in 2004. This legislative analysis stated that the federal CAN-SPAM Act did not preempt the right of action under State law against those who send spam "with misleading or falsified headers." The court, however, denied this position by stating that the analysis just ensured the private right of action under State law against spammers who use falsified headers and Kleffman overstated the significance of the imprecise and summary language in the isolated statement. Furthermore, the court found that the legislative history of the 2004 amendment rather reflected a careful and purposeful distinction between the terms "misrepresented" and "misleading." [1]

The court stated that the Legislature did not intend section 17529.5(a)(2) generally to prohibit the use of multiple domain names because it addressed the subject of multiple domain names by passing another section. [1]

The court also pointed out that the Legislature did not intend section 17529(a)(2) to make it unlawful to use a domain name that did not identify the sender. According to the court, use of a domain name that did not identify the sender was not capable of misrepresenting the sender because it did not represent any sender from the beginning. Moreover, court emphasized that the constructing section 17529.5(a)(2) as requiring sender information would bring about significant preemption problems because federal CAN-SPAM Act preempted a State law requiring commercial email to carry specific types of labels, or to follow a certain format or contain specified content. [1]

Kleffman argued that if domain names of commercial email ads were "random", "varied", "garbled" and "nonsensical," sending of such email ads violated section 17529.5(a)(2). The court pointed out that this construction was especially problematic given that a violation of section 17529.5(a)(2) was punishable by imprisonment for up to six months because what these words meant was uncertain. [1]

Kleffman argued the legislative history of section 17529.5(a)(2) showed Legislature's concern about limitation of spam filters. The court, however, found that references made by Kleffman to illustrate this did not have enough weight to be considered. [1]

Criticism against opt-out regulation

The U.S. CAN-SPAM Act has "opt-out" regulation that allows sending commercial email without prior consent from the recipient. While on the other hand, many countries other than U.S. have introduced "opt-in" regulation that prohibits sending commercial email without obtaining prior permission from the recipient. [4]

Sending of email ads using multiple domain names is lawful under the ruling of the Kleffman v. Vonage holdings Corp., even if aimed at avoiding spam filters. If opt-in regulation in sending commercial email were introduced, however, this kind of email-ads sending would become unlawful. For this reason, there is a criticism that the CAN-SPAM Act leaves its loop holes. [5]

Related Research Articles

Email Electronic mail

Electronic mail is a method of exchanging messages ("mail") between people using electronic devices. Email entered limited use in the 1960s, but users could only send to users of the same computer. Some systems also supported a form of instant messaging, where sender and receiver needed to be online simultaneously. Ray Tomlinson is credited as the inventor of networked email; in 1971, he developed the first system able to send mail between users on different hosts across the ARPANET, using the @ sign to link the user name with a destination server. By the mid-1970s, this was the form recognized as email. Email describes the overall method and "an email" is a message in the system.

Spamming Unsolicited electronic messages, especially advertisements

Spamming is the use of messaging systems to send multiple unsolicited messages (spam) to large numbers of recipients for the purpose of commercial advertising, for the purpose of non-commercial proselytizing, for any prohibited purpose, or simply sending the same message over and over to the same user. While the most widely recognized form of spam is email spam, the term is applied to similar abuses in other media: instant messaging spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, Web search engine spam, spam in blogs, wiki spam, online classified ads spam, mobile phone messaging spam, Internet forum spam, junk fax transmissions, social spam, spam mobile apps, television advertising and file sharing spam. It is named after Spam, a luncheon meat, by way of a Monty Python sketch about a restaurant that has Spam in almost every dish in which vikings annoyingly sing "Spam" repeatedly.

Various anti-spam techniques are used to prevent email spam.

CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 American law to regulate bulk e-mail

The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act of 2003 is a law passed in 2003 establishing the United States' first national standards for the sending of commercial e-mail. The law requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce its provisions. Introduced by Republican Conrad Burns, the act passed both the House and Senate during the 108th United States Congress and was signed into law by President George W. Bush in December of 2003.

Email spam Unsolicited electronic advertising by e-mail

Email spam, also referred to as junk email or simply spam, is unsolicited messages sent in bulk by email (spamming).

Sender Policy Framework (SPF) is an email authentication method designed to detect forging sender addresses during the delivery of the email. SPF alone, though, is limited to detecting a forged sender claim in the envelope of the email, which is used when the mail gets bounced. Only in combination with DMARC can it be used to detect the forging of the visible sender in emails, a technique often used in phishing and email spam.

A joe job is a spamming technique that sends out unsolicited e-mails using spoofed sender data. Early joe jobs aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the apparent sender or inducing the recipients to take action against them, but they are now typically used by commercial spammers to conceal the true origin of their messages and to trick recipients into opening emails apparently coming from a trusted source.

Greylisting is a method of defending e-mail users against spam. A mail transfer agent (MTA) using greylisting will "temporarily reject" any email from a sender it does not recognize. If the mail is legitimate, the originating server will try again after a delay, and if sufficient time has elapsed, the email will be accepted.

A bounce message or just "bounce" is an automated message from an email system, informing the sender of a previous message that the message has not been delivered. The original message is said to have "bounced".

Email marketing is the act of sending a commercial message, typically to a group of people, using email. In its broadest sense, every email sent to a potential or current customer could be considered email marketing. It involves using email to send advertisements, request business, or solicit sales or donations. Email marketing strategies commonly seek to achieve one or more of three primary objectives, to build loyalty, trust, or brand awareness. The term usually refers to sending email messages with the purpose of enhancing a merchant's relationship with current or previous customers, encouraging customer loyalty and repeat business, acquiring new customers or convincing current customers to purchase something immediately, and sharing third-party ads.

Email authentication, or validation, is a collection of techniques aimed at providing verifiable information about the origin of email messages by validating the domain ownership of any message transfer agents (MTA) who participated in transferring and possibly modifying a message.

Email spoofing Creating email spam or phishing messages with a forged sender identity or address

Email spoofing is the creation of email messages with a forged sender address.

A challenge–response system is a type of spam filter that automatically sends a reply with a challenge to the (alleged) sender of an incoming e-mail. It was originally designed in 1997 by Stan Weatherby, and was called Email Verification. In this reply, the purported sender is asked to perform some action to assure delivery of the original message, which would otherwise not be delivered. The action to perform typically takes relatively little effort to do once, but great effort to perform in large numbers. This effectively filters out spammers. Challenge–response systems only need to send challenges to unknown senders. Senders that have previously performed the challenging action, or who have previously been sent e-mail(s) to, would be automatically whitelisted.

DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) is an email authentication method designed to detect forged sender addresses in email, a technique often used in phishing and email spam.

Email forwarding generically refers to the operation of re-sending an email message delivered to one email address to one or more different email addresses.

<i>CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.</i>

CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. was a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in 1997 that set an early precedent for granting online service providers the right to prevent commercial enterprises from sending unsolicited email advertising - also known as spam - to its subscribers. It was one of the first cases to apply United States tort law to restrict spamming on computer networks. The court held that Cyber Promotions' intentional use of CompuServe's proprietary servers to send unsolicited email was an actionable trespass to chattels and granted a preliminary injunction preventing the spammer from sending unsolicited advertisements to any email address maintained by CompuServe.

<i>Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.</i>

Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, is a 2009 court opinion in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the standing requirements necessary for private plaintiffs to bring suit under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, or CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. ch. 103, as well as the scope of the CAN-SPAM Act's federal preemption. Prior to this case, the CAN-SPAM Act's standing requirements had not been addressed at the Court of Appeals level, and only the Fourth Circuit had addressed the CAN-SPAM Act's preemptive scope.

A web beacon is a technique used on web pages and email to unobtrusively allow checking that a user has accessed some content. Web beacons are typically used by third parties to monitor the activity of users at a website for the purpose of web analytics or page tagging. They can also be used for email tracking. When implemented using JavaScript, they may be called JavaScript tags.

<i>Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc.</i>

Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc., 469 F.3d 348, is a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in which Mummagraphics, Inc. is sued by Omega World Travel, Inc. (Omega) and Cruise.com after Mummagraphic alleged that they received 11 commercial e-mail messages in violation of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act of 2003 as well as Oklahoma state law. In the initial filing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had awarded summary judgment to Omega on all of Mummagraphics' claims finding that the commercial emails from Omega did not violate the CAN-SPAM Act, and that the CAN-SPAM Act preempted Oklahoma state law. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

A cold email is an unsolicited e-mail that is sent to a receiver without prior contact. It could also be defined as the email equivalent of cold calling. Cold emailing is a subset of email marketing and differs from transactional and warm emailing.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp. , 232 P.3d 625 (Cal. 2010).
  2. ↑ Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 2007 WL 1518650 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2007).
  3. ↑ Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 551 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2008).
  4. ↑ Spam laws around the world (COMPUTERWORLD) Archived January 14, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  5. ↑ Spammers Sneak Through CAN-SPAM Loopholes (PCWorld)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.