Aitken v. Communications Workers of America
496 F.Supp.2d 653
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Docket Number 1:06cv1161
Before District Judge T.S. Ellis III
Decided on July 12, 2007

Relevancy of the case: Injunctive relief in a case highlighting the need for accurate header information and proper opt-out mechanisms in emails under the CAN-SPAM Act

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM) of 2003, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7701, 7702

Relevant Facts of the Case

• Arnold and Tronsor, on behalf of Communications Workers of America (CWA), created fake Yahoo email addresses using the names of nineteen Verizon managers. They sent unsolicited emails with these fake addresses, containing pro-union messages, criticising Verizon, and promoting unionisation with CWA to numerous Verizon employees.
• The emails implied that unionised Verizon employees enjoyed better job security, benefits, and pay than non-unionised employees. However, as required by the CAN-SPAM Act, these emails did not include an opt-out mechanism or a valid physical postal address.
• After discovering the emails, Verizon initially filed the lawsuit against “John Doe” defendants. They sought injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and costs and fees.
• CWA moved to dismiss the federal claims and requested the court to decline jurisdiction over the state claims. Arnold and Tronsor joined CWA’s motion and additionally moved to dismiss the claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the emails originated from Verizon managers, which was not the case. He argued that this false information misled recipients into believing the emails carried more credibility and authority. Furthermore, he claimed that the emails violated the CAN-SPAM Act by presenting deceptive sender information.
• The defendant’s counsel submitted that the emails were not “commercial electronic mail messages” as defined by the CAN-SPAM Act. They maintained that these messages were unrelated to an existing business or employment relationship between CWA and the email recipients. The counsel claimed the headers were not materially misleading because recipients would understand the emails were from union organisers, not Verizon managers.

Opinion of the Bench

• Union membership involves dues, which are fees for services provided by the union. The emails discussed job-related benefits and conditions, which could qualify them as transactional or relationship messages.
• The emails did not adequately provide an opt-out mechanism as required by the CAN-SPAM Act.

Final Decision

• The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the CAN-SPAM Act claim, allowing the plaintiff’s case to proceed.