A recent federal court decision, in the Northern District of Texas, clarified the scope of liability under California’s anti-spam statute, California Business and Professions Code § 17529.5, in a case involving over 1,900 allegedly unlawful marketing emails.
Plaintiffs alleged that a credit monitoring company and various unidentified parties orchestrated a large-scale spam campaign, using third-party networks and spammers to send promotional emails. The lawsuit challenged the legality of these emails under California law, focusing on three main areas:
- The use of domain names and sender names that were allegedly falsified, misrepresented, or forged (including proxy-registered, redacted-for-privacy, falsely registered, or unregistered domains, as well as misleading sender names).
- The use of subject lines that were allegedly false, misrepresented, or likely to mislead recipients about the content of the emails.
- The involvement of third parties in aiding, abetting, or conspiring to send the unlawful emails.
Legislative History Argument Rejected
Defendant argued that the plaintiffs’ legal theories had been rejected by the California Legislature in connection with a previously unpassed bill (AB 2546). The court rejected this argument, holding that the legislative history of an unpassed bill is not relevant to interpreting the current statute.
Domain and Sender Name Claims Survive
Plaintiffs adequately alleged violations of Section 17529.5(a)(2) based on the use of falsified, misrepresented, or forged domain and sender names. These claims were allowed to proceed.
Subject Line Claims Partially Dismissed
The court drew a distinction between two subsections of the anti-spam law:
- Section 17529.5(a)(2): prohibits falsified, misrepresented, or forged “header information” but does not apply to subject lines.
- Section 17529.5(a)(3): specifically addresses subject lines that are likely to mislead recipients about a material fact regarding the email’s content.
Aiding and Abetting/Conspiracy Claims Survive
The court also allowed claims to proceed against unidentified third parties alleged to have aided, abetted, or conspired in the sending of the unlawful emails, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded these causes of action.
NICOLE AUSTIN, TYNIA BAISDEN, TANISHA CARTER, LATANYA DIXON, FANTASIA HILLIARD, ALONA JENNINGS, DANIELLE LOWERY, MARIO MERINO, BRINDA MOORE, JESSICA PARKER, & JOHN WALKER v. ONE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, & DOES 1-1,000, No. 3:24-CV-0839-S, 2025 WL 2174165 (N.D. Tex. July 31, 2025).
