On February 26, 2015, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that a “from” e-mail address leading to an unmonitored mailbox was not false or misleading information about the origin or transmission path of the e-mail (Walton v. Network Solutions, Md. Ct. Spec. App., No. 1317, 2/26/15).
Here, the plaintiff alleged Network Solutions Inc. violated the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act, Md. C.L. § 14-3001, et seq., in addition to related consumer protection laws by sending multiple e-mails from an unreachable address. E-mails sent to Network Solutions at the address indicated that the “from” line in the e-mails led to the e-mails being returned to sender with a note that the mailbox was not monitored.
The court analyzed the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act, Md. C.L. § 14-3001, et seq., and concluded that there is no requirement to acknowledge, respond to or monitor return e-mails, but merely a requirement not to misrepresent the identity of, or transmission path from, the sender.
The court also found that the “subject” lines, relating to the purchase of domain names without falsely promising free domains, did not have the capacity to mislead a reasonable consumer.
Lastly, the court also ruled that plaintiff’s state consumer protection law claims for failing to unsubscribe him from the mailing list were time-barred.
Information conveyed in this article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute, nor should it be relied upon, as legal advice. No person should act or rely on any information in this article without seeking the advice of an attorney.
