The California Supreme Court yesterday agreed to review a lower
court ruling in favour of Intel that said companies can sue those
who send unwanted e-mail to their employees, according to civil
liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
The EFF is not a party in the case but argues that the lower
court distorted the US doctrine of trespass when applying it to the
internet. The case arises from six system-wide e-mail messages sent
by former employee Ken Hamidi over a two-year period. The e-mails
were received by employees of Intel worldwide, criticising the
company's treatment of its employees.
The Third Appellate District Court of California ruled that
sending unwanted e-mails was an illegal trespass. However, the EFF
argues that sending the e-mails did not trespass on Intel’s
property. It points to the arguments of a dissenting judge in the
Third District Court of Appeal, Judge Kolkey:
"Under Intel's theory, even lovers' quarrels
could turn into trespass suits by reason of the receipt of
unsolicited letters or calls from the jilted lover. Imagine what
happens after the angry lover tells her fiancé not to call again
and violently hangs up the phone. Fifteen minutes later the phone
rings. Her fiancé wishing to make up? No, trespass to
chattel."
In the UK in 1999, Virgin.net sued a former customer for
trespass after the customer used its systems to send around 250,000
spam e-mails. However, the case settled out of court. To date, the
applicability of either Scots or English laws of trespass to the
sending of e-mail have never been tested in court.
