784 F. Supp. 2d 1000
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Plaintiff Nicholas Martin sues CCH, alleging Illinois Electronic Mail Act violations from unsolicited promotional emails.
- Emails at issue: December 29, 2009 and January 7, 2010 advertising tax software with deferred payment terms.
- Plaintiff claims the subject lines misrepresented content and that the emails included deceptive data-harvesting elements and implied a preexisting relationship.
- Defendant moves to dismiss on CAN-SPAM preemption grounds; CAN-SPAM does not provide a private right of action and preempts conflicting state laws.
- Court analyzes express preemption under CAN-SPAM and its interaction with IEMA, citing Omega World Travel and Gordon for the material standard of preemption.
- Court grants motion to dismiss Count I as preempted and allows surreply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CAN-SPAM preempt IEMA claims? | Martins claims IEMA survives CAN-SPAM preemption. | CAN-SPAM preempts state e-mail deception claims. | Yes; Count I dismissed as preempted. |
| Are labeling/deception requirements within IEMA preempted by CAN-SPAM? | Subject-line labeling and content claims survive state law. | CAN-SPAM preempts such labeling/deception standards. | Yes; preempted. |
| Do IEMA claims based on alleged online tracking/behavioral advertising survive? | Allegations of cookies, profiling, and data collection are actionable. | Those claims are not supported by the complaint and fall outside IEMA/or immaterial. | No; dismissed as preempted. |
| What is the proper scope of CAN-SPAM's express preemption in this context? | Preemption should not bar all state-law claims about email deception. | Express preemption covers state statutes regulating electronic mail; only deception in material facts allowed by savings clause. | Express preemption applies; state-law claims barred. |
| Are there reasons to allow surreply or further briefing given the preemption ruling? | Surreply clarifies issues. | Briefing is sufficient. | Surreply granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (falsity or deception refers to traditional tortious conduct under CAN-SPAM preemption)
- Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc., 469 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2006) (preemption of immaterial header errors; cannot regulate mere errors)
- e360Insight, LLC v. Comcast Corp., 546 F. Supp. 2d 605 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (policy congruence between federal regime and blocking unsolicited ads in good faith)