Procedural Posture

Defendant corporation appealed a judgment of the San Mateo County Superior Court, California, awarding statutory damages and attorney fees to plaintiff attorney under California's anti-spam law, Bus. & Prof. Code, § § 17529 et seq. Plaintiff cross-appealed the portions of the judgment denying him relief under the CLRA and finding defendant's chief executive officer (CEO) not personally liable for the judgment. If you are looking for attorney incorporation services then you are at right place.

Overview

The court held, consistent with the trial court's ruling, that header information in a commercial e-mail is falsified or misrepresented for purposes of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17529.5, subd. (a)(2), when it uses a sender domain name that neither identifies the actual sender on its face nor is readily traceable to the sender using a publicly available online database. This case did not involve the use of domain names both parties agreed were fully traceable to defendant. The admitted motivation for the use of multiple, random domain names was not to fool spam filters, but to prevent recipients of the e-mails from being able to identify defendant as their true source. Defendant did not explain why its business was so sensitive and so different from all other businesses that it must be free to hide its identity from the millions of individuals to whom it directed its commercial solicitations. The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's CLRA cause of action. Plaintiff did not seek or acquire any of the goods or services advertised in defendant's e-mails. The trial court also properly declined to hold defendant's CEO jointly and severally liable with defendant.

Outcome

The judgment was affirmed.

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-When there is substantial evidence to support that two qualified patients are engaging in an informal cultivation arrangement to grow and share marijuana only among themselves for medical purposes, with no distribution to outsiders, the absence of business formality does not preclude submitting the collective cultivation defense under Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.775, to the jury; thus, the court erred when it declined to give the defensive instruction on the basis that there was no evidence that defendant and his roommate, with whom he was growing, had a formally organized collective; [2]-Substantial evidence supported the instruction; [3]-The failure to instruct was prejudicial; [4]-It was proper to instruct on the general definition of marijuana (including all parts of the plant), rather than the narrower definition (including only dried mature processed flowers).

Outcome

Judgment reversed.