Do these warnings have any legal force?
In the United States, no. They do not have any legal force. Some have tried to argue that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) applies; however, this law only applies to intercepting e-mails—not accidentally sending to the wrong party. There is no legal protection for "reply all" or "accidental send" human ...
First take a look at Article 13(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC
The use of automated calling systems without human intervention (automatic calling machines), facsimile machines (fax) or electronic
mail for the purposes of direct marketing may only be allowed in
respect of subscribers who have given their ...
Not that I am aware of.
A person who 'owns' a domain is entitled to utilize that domain including for the purposes of receiving emails.
With physical mail, it is a crime in most countries to intentionally interfere with mail that is not addressed to you. For example - Australia. However, this is statute law and as such does not extend to emails - even if ...
In the US, this is generally legalistic puffery. There are prohibited acts such as breaking into a person's Gmail account or hacking into their computer, whereby one might see such an email, but such "warnings" have no significance (it's a crime even without the warning) and surely have no deterrent effect (OMG, hacking is a crime, I had no idea!!). The main ...
No. You have to ask for specific permission to send marketing emails, and can't make it a condition of making a purchase since marketing emails are clearly not necessary for that.
When accepting the terms you need a separate tick box for marketing emails, and it must be unticked by default (opt-in).
"Fraud" requires an intent to deceive. In cases like this I would fall back on the saying, "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence."
Practically speaking: the email you received from them is an amendment to their Terms of Service. I.e., your contract with the company starts with their standard Terms of Service, and is modified by ...
Assume everything is as in the original question, but let's also say there's some generic accompanying text in the email to the effect of "Check this out."
As nomenagentis mentions, the topic is debated. In particular, copyright is one of those areas that requires the judge to consider the particular facts of the case. In this scenario:
What's the worst that can happen? If you do nothing, it's a bit inconvenient. If you delete all that company's stuff, who knows what they could sue you for. I'm not saying they would be right, but being sued can be expensive, no matter whether you are wrong or right.
Send a letter by registered mail, with a witness to the contents, that you are the only ...
You're going to an administrative hearing overseen by an "Impartial Hearing Officer" (IHO). Your goal should be to present your case in as clear, concise, and compelling a manner as possible.
If there are guidelines for the hearing then abide by those.
Ideally, the IHO will be a real lawyer or judge, in which case they will likely be concerned with giving ...
I spent 26 years in Law Enforcement (two years in Fraud, Identity Theft, and Embezzlement) and here is the answer I would often give other people in this situation:
By law, recipients are not required to do anything. It can be deleted without a second thought.
There is no specific law requiring someone to report this as it doesn't rise to the level of a ...
Contacting a business email about a business matter is usually fine, but in this case we have an unsolicited marketing communication (spam), not really a business matter. The client's jurisdiction likely has more specific rules about spam. Also, it is unusual (read: presumably illegitimate) to contact individual employees rather than the company's official ...
GDPR does not require consent. It requires a legal basis. Consent is only one legal basis among many. Some other legal bases are:
legitimate interest (implying an opt out solution)
necessity for performance of a contract
If your customers pay you to deliver email updates, that contract is the legal basis for sending email updates. The only wrinkle is that ...
Article 4(11) says:
‘consent’ of the data subject means any freely given, specific,
informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by
which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action,
signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him
Recital 32 says (my emphasis):
Consent should be given by a ...
You can print a copy of the email, ideally with metadata showing, and testify that you received it and did not modify the email.
The lawyer in the case against Mr. A can ask Mr. A if that is his email address, and can ask other people who have received email from him if that is his email address.
Mr. A's computer and/or email provider can be subpoenaed. ...
I'm not entirely sure why you have to store the data of the invited user? You can simply hash the email address. Hashes are meaningless without the original input so that would allow you to store the data.
Sending email means that you're processing personal data. In your use case it would fall under Art 6 (f): Legitimate Interest.
(f) processing is ...
I assume based on your reference to .edu and your can-spam-act-of-2003 tag that you are interested in United States law. The scheme you describe is illegal under the CAN-SPAM Act.
15 USC 7704 (b) (1) (a) (ii)
(b) Aggravated violations relating to commercial electronic mail
Address harvesting and dictionary attacks
(A) In general
It is unlawful
for any ...
In common law jurisdictions there is a tort of breach of confidence.
One of the requirements for proving breach of confidence is that the person who disclosed the confidential information must (or should have) known it was confidential: this notice does that. So, if, having received an email with that notice, a person discloses it, a suit for breach of ...
In Germany, it most likely does not have any legal effect, and may even cause additional problems.
To quote a lawyer's blog:
Brauche ich einen Disclaimer unter meiner E-Mail? Wohl kaum…
Dieser Disclaimer ist nicht notwendig, sein Nutzen mehr als
fragwürdig. Möglicherweise kann er sogar zu Abmahnungen führen.
It doesn't really require anything beyond your say-so that it is what you say it is; that would be enough to satisfy the requirement for authentication.
From there though, as with any evidence, it's going to be up to a jury to decide how much weight to give the evidence. So the more you can show them to prove that the record is real -- and to knock down ...
Let me be sure that I understand the situation. You set up an account with Big Company, which uses BigCo as a trademark. You want email about that account to reach you with a unique address, so you set up 'BigCo@RichDomain.Com" and gave that as your email when setting up tha account. You don't plan to use that address for any purpose but communications from ...
Yes, there are legal remedies.
GDPR would first require them to handle the emails with a great deal of care. They would not have permission to read them and they may contain private correspondence or information, which is protected by GDPR. As such any abuse of that information, or even storing it for longer than required to identify it as such, would be ...
Submit emails in their totality
Your testimonial affidavit can quote or cite them as applicable. There is no protection of anyone’s privacy in court.
By the way, the email where admissions were made is probably inadmissible if it was sent were in the course of bona fide negotiation to resolve the dispute. If the other party objects they will be thrown out -...
You have not logged in for a few days, come back
Marketing in the way it is formulated. Transactional only if it is mandatory for the contract, such as a reminder that the service is due to end.
Check out this new feature (encouraging people to use the platform)
Welcome to the system, here is how to get started
Transactional, it is like ...
If you are relying on consent as the legal basis for this processing of personal data, then it MUST be opt-in. Pre-ticked checkboxes are not compliant.
If you are relying on a legitimate interest though, then an opt-out solution is OK. What falls under a legitimate interest can be fairly flexible, but you are required to show that this legitimate interest ...
Here is good document. Read "Who Can Claim Copyright?" and "Transfer of Copyright" sections. In that document I could not find anything that would imply that receiving a file in attachment automatically grants you permission to distribute this file to whoever you want.
Also, I am software engineer who is involved in Open Source development. We have a ...
There are two main concerns: copyright restrictions on distributing stuff that other people made, and publicity rights to use other people's picture and voice to promote a product. Both restrictions reduce to the fact that you need the rights-holder's permission to use the material. It is not required that the permission be written on paper or that it be ...
The lawyer referred to in that article is suing in his capacity as the recipient of spam emails under California's anti-spam law.
Not every jurisdiction has a law like this. I'm from Australia. In Australia, when we make laws prohibiting something, the law usually appoints a government agency to administer the law and bring prosecutions under it, and fines ...
Yes it sounds like they have a case they could possibly win
Assuming their trade mark is valid it clearly pre-dates your usage. All that remains is for them to prove that a reasonable person might be confused by your usage - that will turn on the facts.
You have 3 options:
Wait until they start legal action and then comply