BLOG

Wiretapping and email

An Alabama resident is suing Yahoo for violating the California wiretapping law. Specifically he’s suing under CA Penal Code section 631. The thing is, this section of the law deals with wiretapping over “telephone or telegraph” wires. That doesn’t seem to apply in this case as Yahoo isn’t using either telephone or telegraph wires to transmit their packets.

Holomaxx tried the wiretapping argument when they sued Yahoo and Hotmail. That case cited a cause of action under both federal law and California law. The wiretapping claim was addressed specifically by the lawyers for the defendants.

California’s criminal privacy statutes were meant to protect intrusion on confidential conversations, not restrict filtering of bulk emails from commercial email advertisers. See People v. Newton, 42 Cal. App. 3d 292, 296 (1974). Here, Plaintiff is admittedly a bulk “email service provider” who derives its revenue from sending “marketing emails” and advertisements and by being “paid a fixed amount per email sent.” (See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 16-17.) Plaintiff cannot credibly claim either an expectation that its advertising emails stay private or an unawareness that its communications would be subject to possible spam filtering. Indeed, the very opposite is true.13 See People v. Nakai, 183 Cal. App. 4th 499, 518 (2010).

Nor does Plaintiff cite any case law where a state wiretapping or eavesdropping claim in the context of electronic mail, survived a motion to dismiss. This is because sections 630 and 631 of the Penal Code were enacted to protect communications over telephone or telegraph and “a court is not free to advance the public policy that underlies a statute by extending the statute beyond its plain terms and established reach.” See Moallem v. Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc., 25 Cal. App. 4th 1827, 1833 (1994); Membrila v. Receivables Performance Mgmt., LLC, 2010 WL 1407274, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2010) (Section 631 limited to telephone or telegraph claims).

Given there is case law that states the California wiretapping / eavesdropping statute only applies to telephone or telegraphic communications, I don’t think this potential class action suit is going very far.

Other posts on this case

 

Comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • HE.net DNS problems

    Hurricane Electric had a significant outage of their authoritative DNS servers this morning, causing them to return valid responses with no results for all(?) queries. This will have caused delivery problems for any mail going to domains using HE.net DNS - which will include some of their colocation customers, as well as users of their free services - but also will have caused reverse DNS to fail for most servers hosted by Hurricane Electric worldwide, so if any of your mail is being sent from HE hosted machines you may have seen problems. (We're HE customers so we noticed. Still happy with them as a vendor.)No Comments


  • 65.0.0.0/8 DNS issues

    If you're sending email from any address beginning with a 65 - in 65.0.0.0/8 - it's possible you'll see some delivery problems. Something appears to be broken with dnssec signatures for the reverse DNS zone, leading queries for reverse DNS to fail for anyone using a dnssec aware DNS resolver (which is almost everyone).1 Comment


  • Our green bar certificate is going away

    Later today we'll be switching from an Extended Validation ("green bar") SSL certificate to a Domain Validation certificate. This isn't exactly a planned change but I'm waiting for responses from Comodo before I go into it too much. I'll share some more details next week.3 Comments


Archives