We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-6 of 6

Sender's liquidated damages liability under California anti-spam statute limited to $1 million per incident
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

The liquidated damages provision of the California anti-spam statute, which caps liquidated damages at $1 million "per incident," is a limitation on a sender's liability for each transmission of an actionable message to a single recipient or to multiple recipients, a district court held.


On remand from Supreme Court, Second Circuit reiterates ruling barring TCPA junk fax class actions under New York law
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • September 30 2010

Class actions alleging violations of the "junk fax" provisions of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act may not be brought under New York law, because they are barred by N.Y.C.P.L.R. 901(b), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled.


Courts split on assent to web loyalty programs
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • September 30 2010

In In re Easysaver Rewards Litigation (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2010), the district court refused to dismiss a class action alleging breach of contract and fraud claims against an online retailer and the third party provider of a online rewards program.


Complaint containing bare allegations that consumer complaint Web site is an “information content provider” properly dismissed under CDA Section 230
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2010

A complaint containing bare allegations that a consumer complaint Web site solicited complaints, contacted consumers to ask questions and assist in drafting or revising complaints, and steered the complaints to categories designed to attract the attention of class action lawyers, among other things, was properly dismissed pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled.



Kristen J. Mathews
  • Proskauer Rose LLP