Ask an Attorney: What's Driving Email Compliance Litigation

WEBVTT
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.879
Welcome to Compliance Pointers, where we take
00:00:02.879 --> 00:00:05.780
an in -depth look into the latest news, trends,
00:00:06.019 --> 00:00:08.439
and challenges surrounding information security,
00:00:08.859 --> 00:00:12.160
privacy, and marketing compliance. Here is your
00:00:12.160 --> 00:00:16.300
host, Matt Cagle. Hi, everybody. Welcome to the
00:00:16.300 --> 00:00:19.339
latest episode of Compliance Pointers. My name
00:00:19.339 --> 00:00:22.420
is Matt Cagle. I'm with Compliance Point. This
00:00:22.420 --> 00:00:25.800
is the next episode in our Ask an Attorney series,
00:00:25.879 --> 00:00:30.539
and I'm thrilled to have an old friend and colleague,
00:00:30.660 --> 00:00:34.159
Frank Nolan, here with us today. Frank is with
00:00:34.159 --> 00:00:36.880
Evershed Sutherland. We have worked with Frank,
00:00:36.920 --> 00:00:39.079
gosh, Frank, at this point, I don't know, eight
00:00:39.079 --> 00:00:42.259
or nine years, maybe more than we want to admit,
00:00:42.399 --> 00:00:46.039
on a variety of issues, whether that's TCPA -related
00:00:46.039 --> 00:00:50.119
work, some data privacy stuff. Frank and his
00:00:50.119 --> 00:00:52.960
team at Eversheds are someone we would highly
00:00:52.960 --> 00:00:57.780
recommend. So as Frank and I were thinking about
00:00:57.780 --> 00:01:00.640
what would be a good topic for today's conversation,
00:01:01.039 --> 00:01:05.840
he mentioned that email compliance of all things
00:01:05.840 --> 00:01:12.140
is something that is rising up in terms of risk
00:01:12.140 --> 00:01:14.939
area, potential priority for organizations to
00:01:14.939 --> 00:01:19.829
address historically. frank we have not seen
00:01:19.829 --> 00:01:22.890
a lot of enforcement activity around email particularly
00:01:22.890 --> 00:01:26.489
under canned spam at the federal level or with
00:01:26.489 --> 00:01:29.930
the state attorneys general i'm curious what
00:01:29.930 --> 00:01:36.150
what is um driving this increase sure and thanks
00:01:36.150 --> 00:01:38.269
for having me matt it's good to speak with you
00:01:38.269 --> 00:01:42.250
again um so i'm a litigator so our team handles
00:01:42.250 --> 00:01:45.430
compliance uh requests from clients time to time
00:01:45.430 --> 00:01:48.519
from time to time Because we're familiar with
00:01:48.519 --> 00:01:53.239
a lot of these statutes that give rise to private
00:01:53.239 --> 00:01:56.099
litigation. So we're always looking at things
00:01:56.099 --> 00:01:58.379
from that lens. And the reason that I brought
00:01:58.379 --> 00:02:01.120
up this topic is because for the first time in
00:02:01.120 --> 00:02:05.280
my career, we're seeing litigation arising from,
00:02:05.379 --> 00:02:08.979
effectively, allegations of spam emailing. Now,
00:02:09.039 --> 00:02:11.219
that's something that I've never seen before,
00:02:11.340 --> 00:02:14.099
largely because the federal Can Spam Act doesn't
00:02:14.099 --> 00:02:17.849
provide for... private right of action. So it's
00:02:17.849 --> 00:02:23.610
enforced by the FTC. It's not actionable by private
00:02:23.610 --> 00:02:26.710
litigants, and there's no damages provision for
00:02:26.710 --> 00:02:29.400
private. litigants the way that there is you
00:02:29.400 --> 00:02:32.319
mentioned the tcpa i think one thing congress
00:02:32.319 --> 00:02:34.560
was trying to do when it enacted the can spam
00:02:34.560 --> 00:02:37.539
act was avoid what we see with the tcpa which
00:02:37.539 --> 00:02:39.479
is just this onslaught of private litigation
00:02:39.479 --> 00:02:42.139
that costs companies millions and millions of
00:02:42.139 --> 00:02:45.319
dollars a year for settlements and things of
00:02:45.319 --> 00:02:49.460
that nature so can spam is not an area that we
00:02:49.460 --> 00:02:53.389
saw litigation so I was a little surprised to
00:02:53.389 --> 00:02:58.349
see a little flurry, so far a flurry, of activity
00:02:58.349 --> 00:03:03.289
relating to a California anti -email spam law.
00:03:03.710 --> 00:03:05.750
There's a couple of these laws in the books.
00:03:05.830 --> 00:03:09.530
The one in California has been around since 2003.
00:03:11.229 --> 00:03:15.009
It's similar to the CanSpam Act, except obviously
00:03:15.009 --> 00:03:18.729
it's a state law. It's got a couple of key differences,
00:03:19.009 --> 00:03:22.400
which is why... I took note of it, and that is
00:03:22.400 --> 00:03:25.900
the primary one is that it's enforceable through
00:03:25.900 --> 00:03:29.360
civil litigation. So plaintiffs lawyers have
00:03:29.360 --> 00:03:34.539
started to very early stages to key on this law
00:03:34.539 --> 00:03:39.240
to file class action lawsuits or to send pre
00:03:39.240 --> 00:03:42.500
litigation demand letters trying to get a quick
00:03:42.500 --> 00:03:46.259
payday from the letters are basically designed
00:03:46.259 --> 00:03:49.300
for that. And now they're taking a run at class
00:03:49.300 --> 00:03:53.409
action. complaints to see if there's any traction
00:03:53.409 --> 00:03:56.550
there to take advantage of the liquidated damages
00:03:56.550 --> 00:03:58.889
provision in the California law, which is a thousand
00:03:58.889 --> 00:04:03.710
dollars per each unsolicited offending email,
00:04:03.889 --> 00:04:07.110
as well as attorney's fees and costs. So you
00:04:07.110 --> 00:04:09.689
could, the numbers can, you can imagine a company
00:04:09.689 --> 00:04:11.409
sends a lot of emails out through a marketing
00:04:11.409 --> 00:04:13.490
campaign. They get tagged with one of these,
00:04:13.590 --> 00:04:16.970
the numbers can get astronomical quickly. Well,
00:04:17.009 --> 00:04:19.980
I think. and this is why we wanted to talk about
00:04:19.980 --> 00:04:23.300
this we've we've worked with companies for decades
00:04:23.300 --> 00:04:26.439
at this point when it comes to their direct marketing
00:04:26.439 --> 00:04:29.740
activities and whenever they've brought up email
00:04:29.740 --> 00:04:33.839
we've always said hey it's follow can spam it's
00:04:33.839 --> 00:04:37.019
pretty straightforward uh if you're not selling
00:04:37.019 --> 00:04:40.459
fake rolexes or doing something Very questionable.
00:04:40.560 --> 00:04:43.500
It's unlikely that you'll see enforcement activity
00:04:43.500 --> 00:04:45.980
around this. Obviously, honor those consumer
00:04:45.980 --> 00:04:48.740
preferences, honor the opt -outs, but follow
00:04:48.740 --> 00:04:51.240
the intent of the law when it comes to canned
00:04:51.240 --> 00:04:55.120
spam. And you should be good. Focus on the TCPA,
00:04:55.220 --> 00:04:57.899
some of those higher risk areas. In my mind,
00:04:57.980 --> 00:05:00.899
and I'm curious if you agree, this changes the
00:05:00.899 --> 00:05:04.829
risk paradigm related to email activity. at least
00:05:04.829 --> 00:05:07.029
in the short term, somewhat significantly, if
00:05:07.029 --> 00:05:09.449
it is subject to private right of action, potentially
00:05:09.449 --> 00:05:12.290
those class actions, like you said. Yeah, it
00:05:12.290 --> 00:05:17.069
could. I mean, we're still so early in, I guess,
00:05:17.110 --> 00:05:20.449
what you might call like the trial balloon phase
00:05:20.449 --> 00:05:22.649
of plaintiff's lawyers taking a run at seeing
00:05:22.649 --> 00:05:26.329
how, whether these claims can survive. So if
00:05:26.329 --> 00:05:29.790
you go back maybe 10, 15 years, there's a few
00:05:29.790 --> 00:05:33.800
of these cases filed. They were uh not class
00:05:33.800 --> 00:05:36.379
actions and they weren't filed in the context
00:05:36.379 --> 00:05:38.939
that we're seeing them now so there's not really
00:05:38.939 --> 00:05:41.079
a body there's some case law out there about
00:05:41.079 --> 00:05:44.439
this california law but not much that's applicable
00:05:44.439 --> 00:05:48.379
to the theories that one particular plaintiff's
00:05:48.379 --> 00:05:51.180
firm maybe a couple others are taking a run at
00:05:51.180 --> 00:05:55.199
now so the the law this california law um it
00:05:55.199 --> 00:05:56.720
doesn't have a clever name like the can spam
00:05:56.720 --> 00:05:58.980
law or the tcps which is called the california
00:05:58.980 --> 00:06:03.300
law but it tries to prohibit three types of practices.
00:06:03.839 --> 00:06:07.579
The first is that emails that use a third party's
00:06:07.579 --> 00:06:10.519
domain name without the permission of that third
00:06:10.519 --> 00:06:13.120
party. So in other words, kind of masking the
00:06:13.120 --> 00:06:16.959
email address. That's not something that we're
00:06:16.959 --> 00:06:20.660
seeing yet as a theory. The theories that we're
00:06:20.660 --> 00:06:23.139
seeing are under the other two prohibitions under
00:06:23.139 --> 00:06:26.379
the law. So emails that contain false information
00:06:26.379 --> 00:06:30.980
in the from line. So there's no way for the recipient
00:06:30.980 --> 00:06:34.100
to identify who the advertiser is. So these are
00:06:34.100 --> 00:06:37.000
all commercial emails. So in the from line, and
00:06:37.000 --> 00:06:39.199
then the other is in the subject line, where
00:06:39.199 --> 00:06:42.779
if the subject line is likely misleading a reasonable
00:06:42.779 --> 00:06:46.579
recipient about a material fact regarding the
00:06:46.579 --> 00:06:49.839
contents or the subject matter of the message.
00:06:49.899 --> 00:06:53.300
So in other words, the subject line says something,
00:06:53.360 --> 00:06:57.870
it's pointing the recipient this way. The actual
00:06:57.870 --> 00:07:00.009
body of the email when you open it is saying
00:07:00.009 --> 00:07:02.490
something different, all in the context of marketing
00:07:02.490 --> 00:07:05.990
or advertising. So it's basically a deceptive
00:07:05.990 --> 00:07:11.750
practices act specific to emails that are being
00:07:11.750 --> 00:07:16.269
sent. And like CanSpam, it's enforceable by the
00:07:16.269 --> 00:07:18.709
government, but in this case, California Attorney
00:07:18.709 --> 00:07:22.389
General, and by email service providers. So CanSpam's
00:07:22.389 --> 00:07:27.850
also... can be enforced by that very narrow category
00:07:27.850 --> 00:07:31.449
of businesses. But unlike CanSpam, anybody who
00:07:31.449 --> 00:07:33.649
receives one of these emails who's in the state
00:07:33.649 --> 00:07:36.290
of California can bring an action, even if the
00:07:36.290 --> 00:07:38.089
defendant or the company that's sending these
00:07:38.089 --> 00:07:42.350
is not in California. Okay. So to kind of read
00:07:42.350 --> 00:07:47.550
that back to you, it sounds like you're not yet,
00:07:47.610 --> 00:07:49.170
and I don't want to speak for you necessarily,
00:07:49.290 --> 00:07:54.079
but you're not as convinced that this is going
00:07:54.079 --> 00:07:56.959
to be a successful long -term strategy for the
00:07:56.959 --> 00:07:59.319
plaintiff's attorneys that while there's risk
00:07:59.319 --> 00:08:01.259
in the short term and still a lot of unknowns
00:08:01.259 --> 00:08:04.240
that need to be settled like through likely through
00:08:04.240 --> 00:08:08.480
the courts um it's perhaps not the five alarm
00:08:08.480 --> 00:08:12.579
fire that some might be thinking it is i'll say
00:08:12.579 --> 00:08:16.000
this um we've got we've got one of these cases
00:08:16.000 --> 00:08:18.740
a couple couple more in the hopper that are pending
00:08:18.740 --> 00:08:21.980
a motion to dismiss and i'm bullish on our arguments
00:08:22.540 --> 00:08:26.120
So I think that these, the theory here, or the
00:08:26.120 --> 00:08:28.560
theories that I've seen so far with respect to
00:08:28.560 --> 00:08:33.220
my clients, I don't think they will stand up
00:08:33.220 --> 00:08:38.220
to scrutiny on the pleadings. Is that a guarantee?
00:08:38.620 --> 00:08:42.220
No, definitely not. And if we have some bad decisions,
00:08:42.960 --> 00:08:44.860
I mean, that happens. We've seen that in SEPA,
00:08:44.919 --> 00:08:48.919
some bad litigation with the wiretapping on websites.
00:08:50.330 --> 00:08:53.289
Decisions that I don't agree with. If we get
00:08:53.289 --> 00:08:55.450
some bad decisions in this, then who knows? And
00:08:55.450 --> 00:08:57.629
I think that's what the plaintiffs firms are
00:08:57.629 --> 00:09:01.669
kind of testing out to see if this could be what
00:09:01.669 --> 00:09:04.789
you call five alarm fire. Five alarm fire to
00:09:04.789 --> 00:09:08.490
us and our clients is a big payday to the plaintiffs
00:09:08.490 --> 00:09:12.490
bar. So I think we're kind of in that early stages
00:09:12.490 --> 00:09:17.610
of seeing whether these theories carry any water.
00:09:19.129 --> 00:09:22.309
One thing that plaintiffs, lawyers in the consumer
00:09:22.309 --> 00:09:25.570
protection space are very good at is adjusting
00:09:25.570 --> 00:09:28.769
on the fly. So they get a bad decision and they
00:09:28.769 --> 00:09:31.629
tweak their theory a little bit, try another
00:09:31.629 --> 00:09:34.950
angle. So even if we do get some good decisions
00:09:34.950 --> 00:09:38.809
here, I'm not expecting that to be the end of
00:09:38.809 --> 00:09:41.529
this theory. I'm just saying that as of now,
00:09:41.669 --> 00:09:45.509
this theory doesn't add up to me. And I think
00:09:45.509 --> 00:09:48.559
that courts will hopefully see it that way. But
00:09:48.559 --> 00:09:51.759
it's too early to tell for sure. Right. So companies
00:09:51.759 --> 00:09:55.000
need to be aware and thoughtful, but not panic.
00:09:55.059 --> 00:09:58.559
And that makes sense. And I would agree. So it
00:09:58.559 --> 00:10:00.440
sounds like you mentioned you're dealing with
00:10:00.440 --> 00:10:03.200
a few of these cases. What trends are you seeing
00:10:03.200 --> 00:10:07.740
in these claims or arguments? So I think maybe
00:10:07.740 --> 00:10:11.259
giving an example of how this works or one of
00:10:11.259 --> 00:10:15.779
these works might be helpful. So do you have
00:10:15.779 --> 00:10:19.100
a Gmail account? I do. I'm not going to give
00:10:19.100 --> 00:10:21.200
it out on here, given the popularity of this
00:10:21.200 --> 00:10:23.440
podcast, but I do have a Gmail account. Yeah,
00:10:23.480 --> 00:10:27.200
that's that's good. That's good. So most people
00:10:27.200 --> 00:10:32.679
have a Gmail account. If you go into your Gmail,
00:10:32.879 --> 00:10:35.120
let's say on your desk, start with your desktop
00:10:35.120 --> 00:10:37.000
and you see the three folders up there, you've
00:10:37.000 --> 00:10:38.860
got your inbox, you get your social promotions,
00:10:39.080 --> 00:10:41.500
maybe it's promotions and social. But there's
00:10:41.500 --> 00:10:44.220
a separate tab there for promotions on your home
00:10:44.220 --> 00:10:47.309
screen. All kinds of stuff goes in there. You
00:10:47.309 --> 00:10:48.950
probably don't check it very often. But if you
00:10:48.950 --> 00:10:51.830
do and open up that tab, you're going to see
00:10:51.830 --> 00:10:54.009
two things. You're going to see one, just emails.
00:10:54.169 --> 00:10:57.009
So from a subscription service that you might
00:10:57.009 --> 00:11:00.610
get. So if you subscribe to a food delivery service
00:11:00.610 --> 00:11:03.309
and they'll send you periodic updates on your
00:11:03.309 --> 00:11:06.830
account or deals that you might get as a subscriber.
00:11:08.509 --> 00:11:11.649
Interspersed with those emails is something a
00:11:11.649 --> 00:11:14.490
little bit different that when you first look
00:11:14.490 --> 00:11:17.559
at it. You might think or conflate the two things.
00:11:17.659 --> 00:11:21.220
The difference is that that email may say the
00:11:21.220 --> 00:11:24.179
name of the company and then right after it says
00:11:24.179 --> 00:11:28.740
sponsored. So what that is, that's an advertisement.
00:11:29.159 --> 00:11:32.179
If you click on that, it kind of looks like an
00:11:32.179 --> 00:11:34.919
email, but it isn't really an email because there's
00:11:34.919 --> 00:11:37.940
no sender. There's no way to respond to it. There's
00:11:37.940 --> 00:11:41.600
no time that it landed in your inbox. And then
00:11:41.600 --> 00:11:44.779
if you close out a Gmail. and then log back in
00:11:44.779 --> 00:11:47.299
a half an hour later it's probably gone whereas
00:11:47.299 --> 00:11:50.460
an actual email that you got from a company is
00:11:50.460 --> 00:11:54.220
still in your email inbox the reason that you
00:11:54.220 --> 00:11:56.539
get those emails that say sponsored on it is
00:11:56.539 --> 00:12:00.399
due to a number of things but it's basically
00:12:00.399 --> 00:12:03.799
driven by the goo and for example google's uh
00:12:03.799 --> 00:12:08.700
advertising algorithm so google knows everything
00:12:08.700 --> 00:12:11.179
about you matt as you probably know so it knows
00:12:11.179 --> 00:12:13.659
like your your general level of income and education
00:12:13.659 --> 00:12:18.139
whether you have kids so you know they may send
00:12:18.139 --> 00:12:21.179
you certain again i'll use the food service delivery
00:12:21.179 --> 00:12:26.980
example programs or subscriptions that you might
00:12:26.980 --> 00:12:30.799
find appealing given your demographic as a dad
00:12:30.799 --> 00:12:36.340
of four kids ages whatever to whatever you need
00:12:36.340 --> 00:12:39.139
some food delivery services because you're too
00:12:39.139 --> 00:12:42.600
busy to make dinner yeah on a tuesday night so
00:12:42.600 --> 00:12:45.779
that's why you're getting those ads but it is
00:12:45.779 --> 00:12:48.500
just an ad now here's where it gets a little
00:12:48.500 --> 00:12:51.600
different in the way that the reason that plaintiff's
00:12:51.600 --> 00:12:54.019
lawyers are triggering on this is because if
00:12:54.019 --> 00:12:56.940
you open that advertisement and it shows up as
00:12:56.940 --> 00:12:59.980
an advertisement there's an There's an icon on
00:12:59.980 --> 00:13:02.100
the top right of the advertisement. This is all
00:13:02.100 --> 00:13:04.759
within Gmail. You can click on it and you can
00:13:04.759 --> 00:13:08.159
have that converted to an email in your inbox.
00:13:08.360 --> 00:13:11.460
So basically, it's a way to save the advertisement.
00:13:11.639 --> 00:13:15.639
So as a consumer, you may want to, this ad looks
00:13:15.639 --> 00:13:19.019
really good to me. I may want to take advantage
00:13:19.019 --> 00:13:21.539
of this sale, for example. So you can save it
00:13:21.539 --> 00:13:24.860
to your inbox. When it saves to your inbox, then
00:13:24.860 --> 00:13:27.639
it becomes an email. or it looks like an email.
00:13:27.759 --> 00:13:31.799
It has a date on it. It has a to and a from line.
00:13:31.919 --> 00:13:35.899
You can respond to the email. And if you log
00:13:35.899 --> 00:13:38.120
out and log back in, it'll still be there. So
00:13:38.120 --> 00:13:40.720
what plaintiff's lawyers are doing is having
00:13:40.720 --> 00:13:43.820
their plaintiffs effectively go in there and
00:13:43.820 --> 00:13:48.940
create or convert that ad into an email and then
00:13:48.940 --> 00:13:51.940
turn around and sue the company that's advertising
00:13:51.940 --> 00:13:54.399
through Google and saying, you sent me an email.
00:13:54.580 --> 00:13:57.659
This is a spam email. Well, it's not quite that
00:13:57.659 --> 00:14:00.019
simple because it was solicited because you're
00:14:00.019 --> 00:14:02.679
actually, as a plaintiff, converting it from
00:14:02.679 --> 00:14:05.980
an advertisement into an email. So the argument
00:14:05.980 --> 00:14:11.259
is, our argument, is that this is not an email.
00:14:11.299 --> 00:14:14.200
This is an advertisement. And then when it became
00:14:14.200 --> 00:14:16.799
an email, it was not unsolicited because you,
00:14:16.840 --> 00:14:19.220
in effect, as the consumer or the plaintiff,
00:14:19.299 --> 00:14:23.840
took an action to invite the email into your
00:14:23.840 --> 00:14:27.679
inbox. that's one theory that we're seeing and
00:14:27.679 --> 00:14:30.419
the plaintiffs lawyers who have had very frank
00:14:30.419 --> 00:14:34.759
and honest discussions with about the you know
00:14:34.759 --> 00:14:37.240
what i think are the flaws in their theory are
00:14:37.240 --> 00:14:38.519
we're going to see we're going to see what the
00:14:38.519 --> 00:14:40.120
courts say we're going to we're going to play
00:14:40.120 --> 00:14:42.700
this out because it's worth it to the plaintiff's
00:14:42.700 --> 00:14:46.379
lawyers to invest their time because if if the
00:14:46.379 --> 00:14:50.639
court views this as an email then this is going
00:14:50.639 --> 00:14:54.909
to explode Every company that's advertising through
00:14:54.909 --> 00:14:58.190
Google that's sending ads to someone's Gmail
00:14:58.190 --> 00:15:01.389
account, which is pretty much most advertisements,
00:15:01.750 --> 00:15:05.710
could be subject to these claims as perverse
00:15:05.710 --> 00:15:08.629
as it sounds. And when you throw in $1 ,000 per
00:15:08.629 --> 00:15:12.529
email violation, God knows how many advertisements
00:15:12.529 --> 00:15:15.330
are going out. The numbers become so astronomical
00:15:15.330 --> 00:15:17.929
that it's worth it for the limited investment
00:15:17.929 --> 00:15:21.659
of plaintiff's lawyers now. Yeah. All right.
00:15:21.700 --> 00:15:24.879
So let me make sure I'm tracking this. Yeah.
00:15:25.279 --> 00:15:30.259
Under canned spam, you can email people until
00:15:30.259 --> 00:15:33.519
they unsubscribe. Yeah. Marketing emails or not.
00:15:33.600 --> 00:15:37.379
So in this case, even when I convert it to an
00:15:37.379 --> 00:15:41.899
email and you're arguing it's solicited because
00:15:41.899 --> 00:15:45.460
they converted it, I'm curious, is the solicitation
00:15:45.460 --> 00:15:48.159
component really key to the argument or is it
00:15:48.159 --> 00:15:51.769
more focused on? that's now an email once they
00:15:51.769 --> 00:15:54.190
convert it, and then are they pushing the issue
00:15:54.190 --> 00:15:56.789
with the misleading component? Does that make
00:15:56.789 --> 00:16:03.929
sense? Yeah, that's exactly right. So there's
00:16:03.929 --> 00:16:06.289
two aspects here. It's the solicited part, which
00:16:06.289 --> 00:16:08.110
is basically what I was just talking about, and
00:16:08.110 --> 00:16:12.090
then there's the false and misleading, either
00:16:12.090 --> 00:16:17.250
the subject line or the from line. Now, one theory
00:16:17.250 --> 00:16:20.649
that we've seen is... Some of these advertisements
00:16:20.649 --> 00:16:25.429
advertise price reductions. So this is our subscription
00:16:25.429 --> 00:16:27.889
or this is a product or service that we're providing
00:16:27.889 --> 00:16:32.570
at this discount. It was $29 .99. Now it's $19
00:16:32.570 --> 00:16:36.590
.99. And there are laws, including in California,
00:16:36.909 --> 00:16:41.710
that prohibit basically advertising or selling
00:16:41.710 --> 00:16:45.389
something as a discount off of an original price
00:16:45.389 --> 00:16:49.919
that was never actually posted. So in other words,
00:16:50.019 --> 00:16:53.460
they never actually sold something for $29 .99,
00:16:53.620 --> 00:16:55.940
so you can't go around and say this is discounted
00:16:55.940 --> 00:16:58.879
off of $29 .99. It's called a strikethrough pricing
00:16:58.879 --> 00:17:02.720
law. Now, some of these complaints are alleging
00:17:02.720 --> 00:17:06.400
that these emails are doing effectively the same
00:17:06.400 --> 00:17:08.660
thing, and it's a violation of the strikethrough
00:17:08.660 --> 00:17:12.119
law, therefore a violation of this email law.
00:17:12.339 --> 00:17:15.480
Now, they're doing that. without actually alleging
00:17:15.480 --> 00:17:17.200
a separate claim under the strikethrough law
00:17:17.200 --> 00:17:21.200
this is entirely cabin to this email spam law
00:17:21.200 --> 00:17:23.980
but it's the same theory as the strikethrough
00:17:23.980 --> 00:17:27.480
law which is a misleading theory it's a consumer
00:17:27.480 --> 00:17:31.940
uh deceptive practices type of theory that's
00:17:31.940 --> 00:17:35.680
interesting and i would encourage folks listening
00:17:35.680 --> 00:17:39.490
to this if they didn't read or catch wind of
00:17:39.490 --> 00:17:42.009
the old Navy case brought under this California
00:17:42.009 --> 00:17:43.970
law that it would be good to look at that. I
00:17:43.970 --> 00:17:46.809
think their issue there was a subject line said
00:17:46.809 --> 00:17:49.670
something about final day of a sale when in fact
00:17:49.670 --> 00:17:52.430
it was not the final day of the sale. So it sounds
00:17:52.430 --> 00:17:54.349
like it's in that same ballpark that you were
00:17:54.349 --> 00:17:56.569
just talking about. Exactly. And then there's
00:17:56.569 --> 00:17:59.089
another piece of this, which is the from line.
00:17:59.349 --> 00:18:03.740
So if you are advertising. A company is not putting
00:18:03.740 --> 00:18:06.480
those advertisements into your Gmail promotions
00:18:06.480 --> 00:18:10.339
folder. It's Google, for example, who's doing
00:18:10.339 --> 00:18:15.099
that. And so when the email says it's from a
00:18:15.099 --> 00:18:18.819
Google address, who is the actual conduit of
00:18:18.819 --> 00:18:21.980
this advertisement, but it says in the front
00:18:21.980 --> 00:18:24.519
line that it is from the company that is using
00:18:24.519 --> 00:18:27.839
the Google service, those two things are not
00:18:27.839 --> 00:18:31.240
aligned and these plaintiffs are... alleging
00:18:31.240 --> 00:18:34.359
that that's misleading because there's it's is
00:18:34.359 --> 00:18:37.019
it from google is it from the company and it's
00:18:37.019 --> 00:18:40.440
not um matching up and that's that's deceptive
00:18:40.440 --> 00:18:45.339
according to these allegations that however is
00:18:45.339 --> 00:18:48.059
actionable under the federal can spam act that
00:18:48.059 --> 00:18:51.660
kind of theory yeah so we've got a preemption
00:18:51.660 --> 00:18:54.720
argument there so you can't bring one of these
00:18:54.720 --> 00:18:56.980
claims under that theory because it's preempted
00:18:56.980 --> 00:19:01.329
by federal law and i can't spam okay So before
00:19:01.329 --> 00:19:04.730
we put a bow on how companies should navigate
00:19:04.730 --> 00:19:08.089
this with California, are there any other states
00:19:08.089 --> 00:19:11.710
that they should have on their radar? There are
00:19:11.710 --> 00:19:14.390
a couple other states with these laws. Washington
00:19:14.390 --> 00:19:20.250
has a law fairly similar. The private right of
00:19:20.250 --> 00:19:23.910
action is $500 per email violation. So it's a
00:19:23.910 --> 00:19:27.869
little lower, but still plenty high. And that
00:19:27.869 --> 00:19:32.420
law is even older. that's from 1998 so these
00:19:32.420 --> 00:19:35.359
laws are i mean it's surprising that you have
00:19:35.359 --> 00:19:38.559
anti -spam email laws that are this old because
00:19:38.559 --> 00:19:41.019
people weren't really emailing quite in the same
00:19:41.019 --> 00:19:45.710
volume that they were nearly 30 years ago as
00:19:45.710 --> 00:19:47.589
they are now, but Washington is another state.
00:19:47.970 --> 00:19:50.990
We've seen a lot of consumer protection litigation
00:19:50.990 --> 00:19:53.750
in Washington lately. It's not quite at the level
00:19:53.750 --> 00:19:57.650
of California, but it's not surprising that that's
00:19:57.650 --> 00:20:00.670
another state that's seeing activity here. Okay.
00:20:01.130 --> 00:20:04.089
I know we've got a pretty educated audience,
00:20:04.230 --> 00:20:07.130
but for anyone that is sitting there hearing
00:20:07.130 --> 00:20:11.009
$500 per violation or $1 ,000 per violation in
00:20:11.009 --> 00:20:13.720
California, I do want to... reiterate the point
00:20:13.720 --> 00:20:15.799
you made to make sure they caught it which yeah
00:20:15.799 --> 00:20:17.579
that could be painful if we're talking about
00:20:17.579 --> 00:20:20.660
multiple violations with a single plaintiff it's
00:20:20.660 --> 00:20:24.140
it's that ultimately snowballing into a class
00:20:24.140 --> 00:20:29.700
action and likely multi -million dollar penalties
00:20:29.700 --> 00:20:33.480
or exposure eventually settlements and even if
00:20:33.480 --> 00:20:37.059
you're successful with defending it all the attorney's
00:20:37.059 --> 00:20:38.980
fees and time and effort involved in defending
00:20:39.549 --> 00:20:41.609
that type of activity. Not that we don't love
00:20:41.609 --> 00:20:43.730
attorney's fees, Frank, but just calling it out
00:20:43.730 --> 00:20:44.990
for our folks that are listening. We don't love
00:20:44.990 --> 00:20:47.609
plaintiff's attorney's fees. Exactly, exactly.
00:20:49.329 --> 00:20:53.750
Yeah, just one kind of related point there. What
00:20:53.750 --> 00:20:57.910
we could start seeing are pre -litigation demand
00:20:57.910 --> 00:21:02.130
letters more than, I mean, let me back up a step.
00:21:02.230 --> 00:21:04.369
What the plaintiff's firms want, or the plaintiff's
00:21:04.369 --> 00:21:06.369
firms in this area want, is a couple of good
00:21:06.369 --> 00:21:09.650
decisions. denying motions to dismiss in federal
00:21:09.650 --> 00:21:12.009
or state court in california then they can use
00:21:12.009 --> 00:21:14.329
those they can cite them in these pre -litigation
00:21:14.329 --> 00:21:16.930
demand letters that they that they will if it's
00:21:16.930 --> 00:21:19.890
anything like what we see with uh the sepal or
00:21:19.890 --> 00:21:22.950
sipa law uh with website tracking they're just
00:21:22.950 --> 00:21:25.150
going to blanket companies they're going to send
00:21:25.150 --> 00:21:27.990
out thousands of these letters threatening a
00:21:27.990 --> 00:21:31.390
class action to your point the damages are going
00:21:31.390 --> 00:21:33.609
to be in the tens of millions potentially maybe
00:21:33.609 --> 00:21:38.750
more or you could settle individually with this
00:21:38.750 --> 00:21:42.690
individual plaintiff pre -litigation for less
00:21:42.690 --> 00:21:44.609
than you would spend on the cost of defense,
00:21:44.829 --> 00:21:49.329
and that that will cost companies not quite the
00:21:49.329 --> 00:21:52.109
same amount, but it will be certainly a nuisance
00:21:52.109 --> 00:21:54.730
complaint. So I think that they're following
00:21:54.730 --> 00:21:58.869
a similar playbook that we saw with the website
00:21:58.869 --> 00:22:00.690
tracking litigation that we're seeing with the
00:22:00.690 --> 00:22:04.130
website tracking litigation in California. Okay.
00:22:05.289 --> 00:22:08.829
All right. So this is all good for people to
00:22:08.829 --> 00:22:11.609
hear. Now they're probably thinking, what do
00:22:11.609 --> 00:22:15.009
I do about this? Obviously, you don't want to
00:22:15.009 --> 00:22:17.910
be an easy target. That's always our first recommendation
00:22:17.910 --> 00:22:21.109
is understand the type of email activity your
00:22:21.109 --> 00:22:24.009
company is conducting. What's the scope of that?
00:22:24.630 --> 00:22:27.569
And then what controls, guardrails do you have
00:22:27.569 --> 00:22:30.750
in place to mitigate the risk associated with
00:22:30.750 --> 00:22:33.150
this, to review those emails, these campaigns,
00:22:33.430 --> 00:22:36.059
make sure there's Nothing that could be alleged
00:22:36.059 --> 00:22:38.619
to be misleading, despite we know the plaintiffs
00:22:38.619 --> 00:22:40.900
are going to do their best anyways. That would
00:22:40.900 --> 00:22:42.339
be our advice. I'm curious, what do you have
00:22:42.339 --> 00:22:44.740
in addition to that? Yeah, I mean, it's about
00:22:44.740 --> 00:22:47.619
mitigation, not elimination of risk. I mean,
00:22:47.660 --> 00:22:49.839
it's similar with the TCPA. You just have to
00:22:49.839 --> 00:22:52.140
have a strong compliance program. But if you're
00:22:52.140 --> 00:22:56.799
marketing to consumers, it's the cost of doing
00:22:56.799 --> 00:22:58.539
business at the very least that you're going
00:22:58.539 --> 00:23:01.950
to be faced with. if it's not this email lawsuit,
00:23:02.069 --> 00:23:06.390
some other kind of nuisance -type claim. So you
00:23:06.390 --> 00:23:08.930
have to do what you can, which is basically what
00:23:08.930 --> 00:23:12.549
you would do anyway as a company that is invested
00:23:12.549 --> 00:23:16.150
in how it's viewed publicly by its customers
00:23:16.150 --> 00:23:18.849
and consumers at large, which is tell the truth,
00:23:19.390 --> 00:23:22.950
right? Avoid misleading subject lines. Make sure
00:23:22.950 --> 00:23:25.500
that you're... you know clearly identifying who's
00:23:25.500 --> 00:23:28.819
advertising a product or service in the from
00:23:28.819 --> 00:23:32.180
line of the email don't use third -party domains
00:23:32.180 --> 00:23:35.500
without their permission um just do what you
00:23:35.500 --> 00:23:38.119
would expect you know just take a common sense
00:23:38.119 --> 00:23:41.640
view i think is at this point without a developed
00:23:41.640 --> 00:23:44.380
case law here take a common sense view of of
00:23:44.380 --> 00:23:45.940
the world that you don't want to lie to your
00:23:45.940 --> 00:23:48.759
customers i mean how ticked off would you be
00:23:48.759 --> 00:23:51.500
as a customer if you get an email with the subject
00:23:51.500 --> 00:23:54.579
line suggesting some massive discount you open
00:23:54.579 --> 00:23:58.359
it up and it's not true at all um i think most
00:23:58.359 --> 00:24:00.299
companies are probably doing that anyway i would
00:24:00.299 --> 00:24:03.920
hope um so i certainly don't have any clients
00:24:03.920 --> 00:24:05.759
i don't think you do either who are actively
00:24:05.759 --> 00:24:08.259
trying to you know engage in a bait and switch
00:24:08.259 --> 00:24:12.039
uh marketing campaign but just making sure that
00:24:12.039 --> 00:24:13.859
you know you're kind of tracking these kinds
00:24:13.859 --> 00:24:16.920
of developments for the foot faults that could
00:24:16.920 --> 00:24:19.980
end up, you know, creating liability risk later
00:24:19.980 --> 00:24:24.000
on. And then just monitor for developments in
00:24:24.000 --> 00:24:25.900
this area, just like you would with any, you
00:24:25.900 --> 00:24:28.140
know, whether it's TCPA or SIP or whatever it
00:24:28.140 --> 00:24:33.480
might be, because this is very quickly and rapidly
00:24:33.480 --> 00:24:37.200
evolving. But for now, I think just tell the
00:24:37.200 --> 00:24:41.660
truth. Yeah, no, I absolutely agree. from what
00:24:41.660 --> 00:24:45.319
we've seen when issues pop up with this it's
00:24:45.319 --> 00:24:47.980
usually unintentional with our clients they have
00:24:47.980 --> 00:24:52.000
a good wanting to tell the truth marketing legal
00:24:52.000 --> 00:24:54.960
compliance team but then it's somebody has a
00:24:54.960 --> 00:24:57.099
great idea for a campaign or they have a third
00:24:57.099 --> 00:25:00.410
-party marketing agency downstream that has a
00:25:00.410 --> 00:25:02.549
model that's worked well for other clients of
00:25:02.549 --> 00:25:04.509
theirs and they want to launch that. And perhaps
00:25:04.509 --> 00:25:07.069
you're getting into that gray area of misleading.
00:25:07.309 --> 00:25:09.430
And so that's where we would just recommend caution
00:25:09.430 --> 00:25:12.190
and where possible have those controls. Make
00:25:12.190 --> 00:25:14.029
sure there is some review and approval process
00:25:14.029 --> 00:25:17.210
for any new campaigns, any new subject lines,
00:25:17.470 --> 00:25:21.029
just for peace of mind. Again, like you said,
00:25:21.029 --> 00:25:25.410
Frank, really appreciate you joining us today
00:25:25.410 --> 00:25:30.720
and sharing and staying on. be on time with us.
00:25:30.779 --> 00:25:33.319
I would just like to ask you real quick, where
00:25:33.319 --> 00:25:35.299
can the audience find you if they'd like to learn
00:25:35.299 --> 00:25:37.440
more about this or some of the areas that you
00:25:37.440 --> 00:25:40.740
and the Eversheds team focus on? Sure. I'm happy
00:25:40.740 --> 00:25:43.859
to answer any questions if you want to reach
00:25:43.859 --> 00:25:46.579
out. Or pretty much the best place to find me
00:25:46.579 --> 00:25:49.799
is at the Compliance Point Exchange Conference
00:25:49.799 --> 00:25:53.740
coming up in March, where I'll be speaking about
00:25:53.740 --> 00:25:59.829
data breach litigation and how your early response
00:25:59.829 --> 00:26:03.309
to data breach can impact your litigation strategy
00:26:03.309 --> 00:26:06.190
later on. So I'll be seeing you there, Matt,
00:26:06.369 --> 00:26:10.309
and find out if any of the audience members there
00:26:10.309 --> 00:26:13.509
are regular listeners to the podcast. Yeah, I
00:26:13.509 --> 00:26:15.569
hope so. I hope so. No, we appreciate the plug.
00:26:15.630 --> 00:26:17.190
Yeah, for the audience, we do have our event
00:26:17.190 --> 00:26:20.109
coming up in just under two months. If you haven't
00:26:20.109 --> 00:26:22.150
registered, please do so. Frank will be there.
00:26:22.809 --> 00:26:24.630
While his session is going to be focused on data
00:26:24.630 --> 00:26:26.349
breach, I'm sure you could grab him during one
00:26:26.349 --> 00:26:28.869
of the breaks and pick his ear on this email
00:26:28.869 --> 00:26:34.029
issue too. We will make Frank's information available
00:26:34.029 --> 00:26:36.609
associated with this podcast when we post it,
00:26:36.650 --> 00:26:38.829
and mine will be available too. If anyone has
00:26:38.829 --> 00:26:41.009
any questions, feel free to reach out directly.
00:26:41.650 --> 00:26:45.250
Frank, thank you for the time. See you in Orlando.
00:26:46.049 --> 00:26:46.730
Take care.