Email Marketing Compliance – Advertising, Marketing & Branding
KM
Klein Moynihan Turco LLP
Klein Moynihan Turco LLP (KMT) maintains an extensive practice, with an international client base, in the rapidly developing fields of Internet, telemarketing and mobile marketing law, sweepstakes and promotions law, gambling, fantasy sports and gaming law, data and consumer privacy law, intellectual property law and general corporate law.
Our readers may recall a prior piece in which we discussed email marketing compliance, and a California statute which prohibits the sending of false or misleading unsolicited commercial email.
United States
California
Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
Our readers may recall a prior piece in which we discussed email marketing
compliance, and a California statute which prohibits the sending of false or misleading
unsolicited commercial email. With the marketing industry’s
renewed reliance on email marketing, there is a corresponding
increase in lawsuits alleging violations of California’s email
marketing statute. Below, we discuss the facts and claims asserted
in one such recent California State court lawsuit.
California Unsolicited Email Marketing Claims
In Rogers, et al. v. Rely Home, Inc., et al.,
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated Section 17529.5 of the California Business and
Professions Code (“CBPC”) by “spamming” consumers with unsolicited
commercial email. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that
Plaintiffs received, without their consent, 199 purportedly
violative marketing emails which: (1) used third party domain names
without the third-party’s permission for the prohibited purpose
of sending unsolicited commercial email; (2) contained false and/or
forged information in the email headers; and (3) contained subject
lines which were misleading as to the content or subject matter of
the emails. Plaintiffs further alleged that Defendants used
non-readily traceable domain names to conceal their identities in
violation of the CBPC, and that Defendants failed to establish and
implement reasonable practices and procedures to prevent
“unlawful spamming.” These actions, according to the
allegations contained in the Complaint, demonstrate that Defendants
acted willfully in sending Plaintiffs false and deceptive
unsolicited email marketing.
If You’re An Email Marketer, Contact KMT
The CBPC allows for the recovery of actual damages or $1,000 per
email, plus the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Accordingly, CBPC lawsuits can be extremely lucrative for the
plaintiffs’ bar, while they can result in significant cost for
marketers. In addition to CBPC compliance, companies that send
unsolicited commercial email also must comply with the Controlling
the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003,
commonly referred to as CAN-SPAM. The rise in email marketing, coupled with
heightened regulatory scrutiny in the telemarketing space, is
likely to result in significantly more federal and state-related
action.
Similar Blog Posts:
Email Marketing Is Back!
Swigart Law Group CIPA Demands
California Court Issues Major Decision for the
Email Marketing Industry
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
link
