Legal Opinion

Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp.

California Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 2010No. S169195PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CHIN, J.

Business and Professions Code section 17529.5, subdivision (a)(2) (section 17529.5(a)(2)) provides that it is unlawful to advertise in a commercial electronic mail (e-mail) advertisement—commonly known as “spam”—if the advertisement “contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information.” The issue this case presents is whether, under this section, it is unlawful to send commercial e-mail advertisements from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters. We hold that, on the undisputed facts of this case, the answer is “no.”

Factu…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Reno v. American Civil Liberties UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & OpportunityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Cooley v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  4. People v. FierroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co.California Court of Appeal · 2003

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. People v. AlbillarCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Mountain Air Enters., LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  3. People v. Fryhaat, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  4. Hypertouch, Inc. v. Valueclick, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. In Re Appeal of Application for Search WarrantSupreme Court of Vermont · 2012

52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API