Groundbreaking Email Marketing Decision?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

October 2, 2017

Email Marketing

In a recent decision, a federal district court in San Francisco dismissed email marketing-related California State legal claims against Sauphtware, Inc. d/b/a “Panda Mail,” finding that Panda Mail’s delivery of email on behalf of third-party advertisers did not, in and of itself, amount to advertising.  The ruling would appear to absolve emailers of liability for sending commercial email messages to California State residents that are prepared by third-party advertisers and do not feature products or services of the mailer itself.

What are the takeaways for emailers?

Email Marketing Campaign and Lawsuit

In September 2016, a number of California State residents sued Panda Mail, certain of its advertising partners and other third parties in San Francisco County Superior Court (Case No. 16-554299) for alleged violations of California Business and Professions Code § 17529.5, which forbids email advertisements containing false or deceptive subject lines and header information.

The subject plaintiffs allegedly received nearly 600 unsolicited commercial email messages, including approximately 40 email marketing messages that were purportedly prepared by third-party advertisers and sent by Panda Mail.

In August 2017, five of the subject defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 17-cv-4497).

Claims Against Panda Mail Dismissed

On September 22, 2017, the Court dismissed the above-referenced plaintiffs’ claims against Panda Mail.  After considering the plain language and legislative history of § 17529.5, the Court found that California’s high court would interpret the statute to only cover advertisers.  Because Panda Mail only sent the subject email marketing, and did not itself advertise in any of the applicable messages, the Court held that Panda Mail could not be held liable for violations of § 17529.5.

Notably, the Court has afforded the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to allege that Panda Mail advertised in the subject commercial email messages, in addition to sending them.

Sending Commercial Email?  Protect Yourself

The above-referenced decision should be viewed as a win for emailers that deliver messages to California State residents that are prepared by and feature third-party advertisers.  Nevertheless, there are clear best practices that should be implemented to minimize the risk of becoming involved in a “spam” lawsuit in the first place.

To begin with, emailers should confirm that their email marketing partners are taking proper steps to maintain compliance with § 17529.5 and the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (“CAN-SPAM”), among other regulations.  Above all, it is critical to work with experienced email marketing counsel before the launch of any campaign in order to implement the practices and procedures necessary to prevent the sending of unlawful commercial email and to avoid being named in a “spam” lawsuit.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic or have been served with email marketing-related legal process, please e-mail us at or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney.  Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.

Attorney Advertising

Related Blog Posts:

California Court Issues Big Rulings for Email Marketers

Email Marketer Gets Jail Time

Federal Court Serves Up Big Win for Email Marketers in Spam Lawsuit

David O. Klein

David O. Klein

David Klein is one of the most recognized attorneys in the telemarketing, technology, Internet marketing, sweepstakes and telecommunications fields. Skilled at counseling clients on a broad range of technology-related matters, David Klein has substantial experience in negotiating and drafting complex licensing, marketing and Internet agreements.

Schedule a Call
In The Know

Trending Topics

New York Sweepstakes Law blog- Klein Moynihan Turco

New York Sweepstakes Law: Are You Compliant?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In general, a lottery exists when entrants pay for the chance to win a prize. States alone reserve the right to administer lotteries. Businesses can eliminate one element of what would otherwise be an illegal lottery, in order to transform it into a legal promotional game. If the requirement to

TCPA surveys

An Ad or not an Ad: NY Weighs in on TCPA Surveys

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Another day, another court decision that refines constitutes a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) unsolicited fax advertisement. A Manhattan-based federal court recently issued a decision that removes faxed invitations to participate in a survey from the TCPA definition of advertisement. In drawing this distinction for TCPA surveys, the Court held

NY sports gambling law- Klein Moynihan Turco

Agreement Reached to Enact NY Sports Gambling Law

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This week, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature agreed to a budget deal that will bring mobile sports betting to the State through a unique NY sports gambling law.  Upon the Governor’s signature, NY sports gambling is primed to become the nation’s largest market. However, New York

UK and US Social Media Influencer Laws

UK and US Social Media Influencer Laws

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In September of 2020, the United Kingdom’s (“UK”) Committee of Advertising Practice (“CAP”) reviewed the Instagram accounts of 122 UK-based social media influencers to determine whether content was being properly flagged as advertising in accordance with applicable social media influencer laws. This past March, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”)

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin