|
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.〔''(Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp. )'', 232 P.3d 625 (Cal. 2010).〕 ==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).〔 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).〔〔''Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp.'', 2007 WL 1518650 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2007).〕 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)?〔〔''Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp.'', 551 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2008).〕 The Supreme Court of California granted the Ninth Circuit’s request.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|