Advertise through Commercial Emails - Case Study Example

The case is a litigation civil case under section 17529.5, section (a) (2) of the company and Professions Code which states that it is against the law to advertise via commercial emails, also known as spam, whose content is untrue, misrepresented, or copied header information. The verdict in this case, is to determine whether it is illegal to advertise through commercial emails using multiple domain names to avoid spam filters (Supreme Court of California).

The Internet is global networking in computers, which enables millions of the world's populace to communicate and access information. Referring to a case in Reno v. civil liberties union (1997) 521 U.S. 844 for the internet to operate, each connected entity must have a unique identity called IPA.
In 2007, Craig E. Kleffman filed a suit against Vonage holdings corp. in the District Court under section 17529.5 of the Professions Code only to lose to Vonage (Supreme Court of California). Kleffman claimed that Vonage Holdings had sent him eleven emails on the same subject from different domain names tracing back to Vonage's marketing agent. By doing this, Vonage managed to trick the spam filter and internet service provider that was responsible for monitoring the number of sent emails from individual domain names. He concluded that Vonage deliberately created multiple domain names to reduce the number of emails from each domain name and at the same time tricked the internet service providers that the emails originated from different senders. Vonage use of several domain names is misleading and untrue because it does not identify the right sender. However, the case was dismissed because Kleffman did not give any occurrence of misleading or false information in the content of any of the emails.
Kleffman however, appealed to the Court of Apples, which under the California rule of court 8.548 the Ninth Circuit, asked them to decide. “By section 17529.5(A) (2), does using several domain names to send un-called-for advertisement emails to avoid spam make them untrue, misrepresented, or copied?” This rule also provides that the Court of Appeals may request the Supreme Court to answer the question. The Supreme Court approached the dispute by first focusing on the issues that both sides agree on. The first one was that both the plaintiff and defendant acknowledged the domain names as part of the emails. The second one was that information on the domain name was correct, accurate, and fully related to the Vonage marketing agent. Finally, both do not find the material or the content in the email or accompanying the email untrue or misrepresented as per subdivision 17529.5(a)(2) (Supreme Court of California).

Vonage based its answer to the question asked in the court, defining the phrase “header information” as per the legislature’s definition in subdivision 17529.5(a)(2). Vonage argued that sending multiple emails did not violate subdivision 17529.5 (a) (2) as long as the information was correct. Kleffman on the other hand based his argument on two points. One of them was that defining misrepresentation would be properly done by incorporation of sections 17200 and 17500 from the Business and ProfessionalCodee. The second argument was that using a word such as “misleading” was appropriate in defining misrepresentation. Kleffman concluded that sending emails from varied, garbled, random, and nonsensical multiple domain names was a misrepresentation.

This case lay down a general ruling that, as per subdivision 17529.5(a) (2), sending advertising emails from several domain names was not illegal. The court ruling found Kleffman’s argument to hold no water as per section 17529.5 (a) (2). This is because, from his first argument to use subdivisions 17200 and 17500, the court found out that the two sections were drafted to help in coming up with section 17529.5(a) (3) but not 17529.5 (a) (2). From his second argument, the court argued that in this context the word misrepresentation drove its meaning from the word “falsified” found in section 17529.5 (a) (2). Also, his reasoning that random, varied, garbled, and nonsensical multiple domain names were a misrepresentation, was not workable because he failed to define garbled, varied, random, and nonsensical (Supreme Court of California)

In conclusion, the case concurs with the opinion that it is legal to send emails using several domain names, to avoid spam filters as per section 17529.5 (a) (2). This action is only advantageous to advertising professionals while the recipients continue receiving unnecessary emails. There were several legal terminologies used. The first one was legislature which means a body empowered by the court to pass, repeal or amend laws. The second was the plaintiff which refers to the party that files a suit in the court of law also known as the complainant. The third one was defendant which means the accused party or the party answerable to a legal suit in a court of law. Finally, the term Court ruling is defined as an official statement, by a judge or a panel of judges, that gives the court’s legal decision to a hearing.

Read More