HOLOMAXX TECHNOLOGIES v. Microsoft Corp.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29402
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Holomaxx provides email marketing services using client-provided subscriber lists and claims CAN-SPAM compliance with safeguards that yield a low complaint rate.
- Microsoft, an ISP, blocks or throttles Holomaxx emails via its filters (SmartScreen, dynamic spam traps, whitelists) affecting Holomaxx’s deliverability.
- Holomaxx alleges blocking began in 2009 on .78 IP addresses and continued, expanding to .88 addresses in 2010, causing revenue and reputational harm.
- Holomaxx further alleges Microsoft accessed Holomaxx’s stored emails, scanned content, and used the information with a Return Path reputation score to deem emails as spam.
- Holomaxx asserts Microsoft communicated to Dragon Networks that Holomaxx was sending spam, further damaging contracts and client relationships.
- Holomaxx seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, plus damages and fees; Microsoft moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CDA immunity applies to Microsoft’s filtering actions | Holomaxx asserts no blanket immunity for business-content filtering. | Microsoft contends § 230(c)(2) immunizes good-faith filtering by an interactive service provider. | CDA immunity applies to filtering; some claims dismissed with leave to amend. |
| Whether Microsoft’s filtering decisions are protected as good-faith blocking | Holomaxx alleges filtering is faulty and motivated by profit. | Microsoft acted in good faith; Holomaxx fails to show lack of good faith or objective standard. | Holomaxx failed to plead lack of good faith; claims based on filtering dismissed with leave to amend. |
| Whether the Wiretap Act claim is sufficiently pled | Holomaxx alleges interception and use of emails by Microsoft. | No detailed facts showing interception or use. | Claim One dismissed for lack of factual detail. |
| Whether the Stored Communications Act claim is sufficiently pled | Holomaxx alleges unauthorized access to storage of emails. | Insufficient factual detail to show unauthorized access or exceeded authorization. | Claim Two dismissed for lack of factual detail. |
| Whether defamation, false light, and UCL claims survive | Holomaxx contends communications harmed its reputation and business; seeks relief under defamation and UCL. | Defamation and false light require actionable statements and privacy rights; UCL lacks standing and viable predicate claims. | Defamation and false light lack sufficient, cognizable bases; UCL claim also dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (CDA § 230 protection for good-faith moderation)
- Zeran v. AOL, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (statutory aims of CDA to promote self-regulation)
- Jones v. Block, 549 U.S. 199 (Supreme Court 2007) (scope of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standards and grounds)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (requires plausible factual allegations, not mere labels)
- In re Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1994) (public records and incorporation concepts (illustrative))
- In re Facebook PPC Adver. Litig., 2010 WL 5174021 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (example of incorporation by reference analysis (cite WL where available))