Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen

Last updated
Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen
District-Idaho.gif
Court United States District Court for the District of Idaho
Full case nameMelaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen
DecidedApril 15, 2011
Citation(s)No. 10-553, 2011 WL 1458351 (D. Idaho Apr. 15, 2011)
Case history
Prior action(s)Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen, No. 07-212 (D. Idaho Sept. 30, 2010)
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingHonorable Edward Lodge
Keywords
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, spam, collateral estoppel, standing (law), summary judgment

Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen was a United States District Court for the District of Idaho case which clarified the meaning of "internet access provider" and "direct adverse" effect as used in 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 [1]

Contents

Among several claims, Melaleuca Inc. claimed that Hansen violated the "CAN-SPAM" Act by emailing Melaleuca executives and trying to induce them to leave the company. Hansen filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing on the CAN-SPAM claims. The court dismissed spam claims due to lack of standing (law) under the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.

Background

Hansen was an independent marketing executive for a multi-level marketing company called ITV. [1] One of Hansen's work tasks involved getting customers to join ITV as marketing executives.

Hansen e-mailed some of Melaleuca's marketing executives, informing them about ITV and inviting them to discover new business opportunities. Some of these individuals were users of an "i-glide" email service. Melaleuca owned the domain name "i-glide.net", which provided its employees with the option of purchasing Internet services, including email. It provided these services through a third party internet service provider called IP Applications. As such, it did not have control or access to the hardware that enabled access to i-glide customers, nor did it control the spam filters applied to the emails.

First District Court Decision (Melaleuca I)

The court dismissed Melaleuca's suit without prejudice, finding lack of standing. To have standing under the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, a plaintiff must be:

  1. a "provider of Internet access service" who was
  2. "adversely affected" by violations of the Act.

Melaleuca was not an ISP under the CAN-SPAM Act

Section 7702 of the CAN-SPAM Act defines an IAS by referencing 47 U.S.C.   § 231, [2] which states:

The term "Internet access service" means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to consumers. Such term does not include telecommunications services.

47 U.S.C. § 231 [2]

The court found that Melaleuca did not fall under the definition of an "internet access provider" (IAS), since it did not play more than a nominal role in internet-related services. [3] Although Melaleuca owned the domain name and provided e-mail addresses, it provided internet access through an internet service provider, IP Applications. Although IP Applications later assigned its CAN-SPAM claims to Melaleuca, this assignment was untimely because it occurred after the lawsuit was filed.

Melaleuca failed to show direct adverse effect

Moreover, the court held that Melaleuca did not show any direct adverse effect or damages from Hansen's emails. Referencing Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc. , [4] a Ninth Circuit case, the court specified that harm must be both real and of the type experienced by ISPs, something "beyond the mere annoyance of spam and greater than the negligible burdens typically borne by an IAS provider in the ordinary course of business." The court held that Melaleuca had not satisfied this legal test that Congress intended for ISP providers.

Second District Court Decision (Melaleuca II)

Melaleuca filed a second suit. Hansen moved to dismiss, claiming that the second suit was barred based on issues of preclusion. [5] Affirming its prior decision [1] on the same issues, the court granted the motion to dismiss. In short, the court re-affirmed that Melaleuca was not a directly affected "internet access provider" under the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.

Significance

This case is similar to Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc. . [4] Both cases further define the boundaries of "internet access provider" as used in the CAN-SPAM Act. In Gordon, the Ninth Circuit limited future causes of action under the CAN-SPAM Act by addressing the same standing thresholds under the CAN-SPAM Act. The court determined that Gordon was not a bona fide internet access provider because he did not operate an "authentic" internet service. Providing email accounts alone was not enough, although providing email access and email accounts may be sufficient to qualify under CAN-SPAM. Moreover, the court found that Gordon had not "adversely" suffered from Virtumundo's actions. It further instructs lower courts to review standing for CAN-SPAM claimants with a very critical eye. [4]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spamming</span> 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 repeatedly sending the same message 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.

The Spam Prevention Early Warning System (SPEWS) was an anonymous service that maintained a list of IP address ranges belonging to internet service providers (ISPs) that host spammers and show little action to prevent their abuse of other networks' resources. It could be used by Internet sites as an additional source of information about the senders of unsolicited bulk email, better known as spam.

A Domain Name System blocklist, Domain Name System-based blackhole list, Domain Name System blacklist (DNSBL) or real-time blackhole list (RBL) is a service for operation of mail servers to perform a check via a Domain Name System (DNS) query whether a sending host's IP address is blacklisted for email spam. Most mail server software can be configured to check such lists, typically rejecting or flagging messages from such sites.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">CAN-SPAM Act of 2003</span> 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 2003.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mobile phone spam</span> Unwanted communication through a mobile phone

Mobile phone spam is a form of spam, directed at the text messaging or other communications services of mobile phones or smartphones. As the popularity of mobile phones surged in the early 2000s, frequent users of text messaging began to see an increase in the number of unsolicited commercial advertisements being sent to their telephones through text messaging. This can be particularly annoying for the recipient because, unlike in email, some recipients may be charged a fee for every message received, including spam. Mobile phone spam is generally less pervasive than email spam, where in 2010 around 90% of email is spam. The amount of mobile spam varies widely from region to region. In North America, mobile spam steadily increased after 2008 and accounted for half of all mobile phone traffic by 2019. In parts of Asia up to 30% of messages were spam in 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Email spam</span> Unsolicited electronic advertising by e-mail

Email spam, also referred to as junk email, spam mail, or simply spam, is unsolicited messages sent in bulk by email (spamming). The name comes from a Monty Python sketch in which the name of the canned pork product Spam is ubiquitous, unavoidable, and repetitive. Email spam has steadily grown since the early 1990s, and by 2014 was estimated to account for around 90% of total email traffic.

Trespass to chattels is a tort whereby the infringing party has intentionally interfered with another person's lawful possession of a chattel. The interference can be any physical contact with the chattel in a quantifiable way, or any dispossession of the chattel. As opposed to the greater wrong of conversion, trespass to chattels is argued to be actionable per se.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Spamhaus Project</span> Organization targetting email spammers

The Spamhaus Project is an international organisation based in the Principality of Andorra, founded in 1998 by Steve Linford to track email spammers and spam-related activity. The name spamhaus, a pseudo-German expression, was coined by Linford to refer to an internet service provider, or other firm, which spams or knowingly provides service to spammers.

Wayne Mansfield, of Perth, Western Australia, was the head of direct marketing business T3 Direct Marketing, operating under a series of two-dollar companies, and in 2005 became the first Australian to be prosecuted for email spamming.

Robert Alan Soloway is the founder of the so-called "Strategic Partnership Against Microsoft Illegal Spam," or SPAMIS, but is said to be one of the Internet's biggest spammers through his company, Newport Internet Marketing (NIM). He was arrested on May 30, 2007, after a grand jury indicted him on charges of identity theft, money laundering, and mail, wire, and e-mail fraud. He was nicknamed the "Spam King" by prosecutors.

Xtra was a brand used by New Zealand telecommunications provider Spark for its Internet service provider subsidiary from 1996 to 2008. At its inception, Xtra provided only dial-up Internet access, but began providing ADSL service in 1999.

Geobytes is a global company that provides geolocation and anti-spam software. Geobytes was incorporated in the State of Delaware, USA in 1999.

A Doe subpoena is a subpoena that seeks the identity of an unknown defendant to a lawsuit. Most jurisdictions permit a plaintiff who does not yet know a defendant's identity to file suit against John Doe and then use the tools of the discovery process to seek the defendant's true name. A Doe subpoena is often served on an online service provider or ISP for the purpose of identifying the author of an anonymous post.

Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 232 P.3d 625, 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 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.

<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.

<i>America Online, Inc. v. IMS</i>

America Online, Inc. v. IMS, 24 F. Supp. 2d 548 was one of a series of legal battles America Online launched against junk e-mail. In this case, the court held that defendants' unauthorized mailing of unsolicited bulk e-mail constituted a trespass to chattels under Virginia state law.

<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 Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen, 2011WL1458351 (D. IdahoApr. 15, 2011).
  2. 1 2 47 U.S.C. § 231 (2006)
  3. Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen, No. 07-212 (D. IdahoSept. 30, 2010).
  4. 1 2 3 Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc. , 575F.3d1040 (9th Cir.2009).
  5. Venkat Balasubramani (April 27, 2011). "Court Says CAN-SPAM Plaintiff Can't Take Second Bite at the Apple, Melaleuca v. Hansen". Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Retrieved March 4, 2011.