This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Advertising
Anti-Spam Statutes

Beyond Systems Inc. v. Kraft Foods Inc., Vict.Th.Engwall & Co., Connexus Corp., Hydra Media Group Inc.

Published: Aug. 31, 2013 | Result Date: Aug. 12, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 8:08-cv-409 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Maryland


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Thomas Barba

Anthony Cavanaugh

Anthony Onorato

Roger Yoerges

John J. Duffy
(Swanson, Martin and Bell LLP)

Jeffrey McFadden

Jennie L. Kneedler


Defendant

Lisa Jose Fales
(Venable LLP)

J. Douglas Baldridge
(Venable LLP)

Ari N. Rothman
(Venable LLP)


Facts

BSI filed suit against Kraft Foods Inc., arguing that e-mails advertising Gevalia Coffee, a product Kraft produces (through various subordinate companies), were materially misleading and deceptive. Connexus
Corporation is one of the distributors of the advertising e-mails. Hydra Corporation was also alleged to have participated in sending out the e-mails, but it did not answer the suit, so default judgment was entered against it for liability only, not for damages.

Kraft Foods filed a third party complaint against James Wagner and Hypertouch, alleging that BSI received its e-mails from them and that its primary focus was to attract suspected spam e-mails and bring anti-spam litigation against them.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
BSI claimed that it was an interactive service provider, and thus had standing to sue. It also argued that whether it consented to receive the e-mails or not was irrelevant.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Kraft argued that they were entitled to summary judgment because BSI was not a bona fide Internet Computer Service Provider, and therefore lacked standing to sue. Kraft also claimed that BSI intentionally invited and consented to receive the spam e-mails it was now attempting to sue upon.

Defendants also contended that Hypertouch Inc. was an Internet service provider in California, owned and operated by James Wagner, whose principal activity was attracting spam e-mails and then suing them. Hypertouch would also route the e-mails to BSI, which would also file its own suits under Maryland's anti-spam statutes. BSI is owned and operated by Paul Wagner, brother of Hypertouch's James Wagner.

Result

The court granted Kraft's and Connexus' Motion for Summary Judgment as to BSI; and denied BSI's Renewed Motion for Default Judgment damages as to Hydra LLC.


#93802

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390