Greenberg v. Digital Media Solutions, LLC, A158854

Background

Plaintiffs (recipients) received at least 282 unsolicited commercial emails advertising products sold by Digital Media Solutions, LLC (DMS) that were sent by third‑party "marketing partners."
The complaint alleged violations of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5(a)(2) based on email header information: domain names, "From Names," and subject lines that allegedly falsified or misrepresented the sender.
Representative email: sent from Vehicle.Service.Plan@badealz.com (badealz.com allegedly registered to an opaque entity), used generic From Names (e.g., "Vehicle Service Plan"), included a subject line referencing the recipient's email and warranty, linked to DMS’s site (platinumautowarranty.com), and listed "Transparent Auto Warranty" in the body.
Trial court sustained DMS’s demurrer, relying on Rosolowski v. Guthy‑Renker to conclude the body disclosures (link, business name, address) precluded a § 17529.5(a)(2) claim; it also held subject lines were not actionable under (a)(2) and left open (a)(3).
The Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of the subject‑line theory but reversed the dismissal as to the domain‑name theory, holding a recipient may sue an advertiser under § 17529.5(a)(2) for third‑party senders’ use of untraceable/made‑up domain names when the body does not make the sender readily ascertainable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do subject lines fall within § 17529.5(a)(2) "header information" or only § 17529.5(a)(3)?	Subject lines can be header information actionable under (a)(2) when falsified.	Statutory text, structure, and Kleffman limit "header" to source/routing info, not subject lines.	Subject lines are not cognizable under (a)(2); they fit (a)(3) (affirmed).
Do the subject lines alleged meet (a)(2)’s requirement of being "falsified, misrepresented, or forged"?	The subject lines falsely suggested an existing business relationship.	The statements are at most misleading, not falsified/forged/material under (a)(2).	Subject lines here do not satisfy (a)(2)’s higher falsification standard (affirmed).
Do generic "From Names" (e.g., "Vehicle Service Plan") violate (a)(2)?	Generic From Names misrepresent who sent the email.	Such From Names do not make any representation of source and are preempted if states required full identification.	Generic From Names do not state a claim under (a)(2) (demurrer properly sustained).
Can an advertiser (DMS) be liable under (a)(2) for third‑party senders’ use of untraceable/made‑up domain names when the email body does not reveal the sender?	Yes; advertisers can be held responsible for marketing agents’ use of untraceable domains that conceal identity.	DMS relied on Rosolowski: body disclosures (link, address) cure header defects and preclude liability.	Reversed dismissal: where the body does not make the third‑party sender readily ascertainable, an advertiser may be liable under (a)(2) for untraceable domain names (demurrer improperly sustained on domain‑name allegations).

Key Cases Cited

Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 49 Cal.4th 334 (Cal. 2010) (interprets "header information" and distinguishes (a)(2) falsification standard from (a)(3) "likely to mislead" standard)
Balsam v. Trancos, Inc., 203 Cal.App.4th 1083 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (holds header info falsified under (a)(2) when sender uses untraceable, privately registered domains to conceal identity)
Rosolowski v. Guthy‑Renker, 230 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (concludes body disclosures can make sender readily ascertainable, negating an (a)(2) claim)
Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (materiality standard for misrepresentation in consumer cases)
Hypertouch, Inc. v. ValueClick, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (statute targets advertisers and permits advertiser liability for emails sent by marketing agents)
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (CAN‑SPAM preemption implications for requiring full identification in the From field)