Ninth Circuit certifies interesting e-mail question to California Supreme Court in Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings
/As I play weekend catch-up and work through the list of items to consider for posting, I saw a Ninth Circuit case that I saved for its technology angle. Periodically, the Ninth Circuit gets a tricky question of first impression about California law. When the answer to the question could prove significant, the Ninth Circuit will occasionally certify a question to the California Supreme Court, in the hope that the California Supreme Court will bail them out and take the question. In Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings, the Ninth Circuit certified this question:
“Does sending unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters constitute falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5(a)(2)?
Yes. Why yes? Because there isn't any spam out there that isn't faking its header information. Perhaps an overstatement, but so close to true that the differential is insignificant. The fact that spam comes from multiple domain names is just an additional irritation. Somebody oughta' file a class action...