This month in email: September 2013

Looking back through the month of September there were a couple things talked about on the blog.

Legal cases discussed

I wrote quite a bit about the Google wiretapping case. In this potential class action suit, a number of plaintiffs are suing Google for intercepting emails in violation of the federal wiretapping statutes and state wiretapping laws. On September 5th I attended a hearing on Google’s motion to dismiss in San Jose. The judge issued her ruling on September 26, allowing the case to move forward on most counts. I did a post on the federal claims and some of the judge’s reasons for allowing the case to go forward.
In other court cases, Al guest blogged about Spamarrest losing in court.
I also discussed two instances of companies looking for patent infringers in the email space.

ISP specific issues

The big issue in September was Yahoo releasing recycled addresses. The addresses were handed over at the end of August, but by mid-September we started hearing stories of personal information leaking to the wrong people. Yahoo started scrambling to cope with the problem.

Industry and technical commentary

I did a post about ISP relationships and how who you know is becoming less and less important for email delivery. I also looked at “the volume question” and discussed how volume can affect email delivery. Finally, Steve talked about tips and techniques for analyzing email on the fly without dropping everything into a database.

Related Posts

Motion to dismiss in Penkava v. Yahoo case

Earlier this month Yahoo filed a motion to dismiss in the Penkava v. Yahoo. This is the class action lawsuit where an Alabama resident is attempting to sue Yahoo for violation of the California wiretapping law.
Here’s the short synopsis.
People send mail to Yahoo. Yahoo “creeps and peeps” on that mail so they can profit from it. Plaintiff doesn’t like this, and thinks that he can use the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), (Cal. Penal Code § 630, et seq;) to stop Yahoo from doing this. Additionally, there is a whole class of people who live in every state but California who have also been harmed by Yahoo’s actions. The plaintiff would like the court to make Yahoo stop doing this. (First Amended Complaint)
Yahoo’s motion to dismiss is actually pretty dry and there aren’t really any zinger pull quotes that make sense without reading the whole 35 pages. The short version is that what Yahoo is doing is not a violation of California law, it is simply handling email as it has to be done to get it to recipients. Plus, California law cannot apply to mail sent from a non-CA resident to a non-CA resident because that would violate the dormant commerce clause. The class as defined makes no sense. Finally, the plaintiff continues to send mail to Yahoo addresses knowing the mail is being “scanned” and that is implicit permission for Yahoo to do it.
In the initial complaint there was an allegation that Yahoo’s behaviour was a violation of Federal and/or California Wiretapping laws. These allegations appear to have been dropped in the First Amended Complaint.
Right now there is a hearing scheduled for March 13, 2013. I’ll keep an eye on the filings.

Read More

Penkava v. Yahoo: dismissed

Carson Penkava, who was suing Yahoo! under California wiretapping laws, filed for dismissal with prejudice at the end of November. No reasons were given.

Read More

Google wiretapping case, what the judge ruled

Yesterday I reported that the judge had ruled on Google’s motion to dismiss. Today I’ll take a little bit deeper look at the case and the interesting things that were in denial of the motion to dismiss.
Google is being sued for violations of federal wiretapping laws, the California invasion of privacy act (CIPA) and wiretapping laws in Florida, Pennsylvania and Maryland. This lawsuit is awaiting class certification for the following groups.

Read More