The chip maker had tried to argue a breach of a state trespass law – but the court decided that e-mail could only invoke that law if it caused actual damage to equipment or property.
The Story
Ken Hamidi spent nine years as an Intel engineer. Following a work-related road accident he took a medical leave of absence in 1992 and, when fired three years later, began a crusade against the company he described as treating him like an enemy. He claimed compensation for back pain. Intel hired a private investigator who secretly filmed 55-year-old Hamidi changing a wheel on his car, despite the alleged pain. Hamidi claims that the investigator slashed his tyre to set him up.
The mud-slinging got worse. Hamidi accused the company of brainwashing employees, sending out subliminal messages, driving some employees to the brink of suicide. He also accuses Intel of discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, and ethnic origin.
Hamidi expressed these grievances on six separate occasions, by sending an e-mail to all Intel employees. Intel fought back. It won a court order, forbidding Hamidi from sending any more e-mails to company employees on the grounds that he was "trespassing" on its private property. The court said that, while "trespass to chattel" (a chattel being any property other than freehold land) requires some harm to the property – in this case Intel's computers – that standard was met by the loss of productivity that Intel suffered as its staff dealt with Hamidi's messages.
This wouldn't stop Hamidi putting his opinions on the internet; but Intel said it wanted to make sure that he didn't "upset" its current employees.
The court agreed with Intel, deciding that its e-mail system was not a public forum, even though it was connected to the internet.
However, with the financial backing of civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Hamidi appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Monday's result
California's Supreme Court ruled 4-3 for Hamidi, reasoning that the legal claim of trespass to chattels requires damage to Intel's computers or their usefulness, not just distraction or loss of productivity due to employees reading messages that criticised Intel.
The decision noted that calling distressing content of a message a "trespass" on the computer was as wrong as claiming that "the personal distress caused by reading an unpleasant letter would be an injury to the recipient's mailbox, or the loss of privacy caused by an intrusive telephone call would be an injury to the recipient's telephone equipment."
The court made clear that the nature of Hamidi's e-mails differed significantly from spam, which can overburden a company's computer system. The written opinion observes that "Intel presented no evidence that its system was slowed or otherwiese impaired," noting also that companies like Intel have other remedies, including defamation laws.
EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien said of yesterday's result:
"The California Supreme Court today protected the rights of those who send e-mail by refusing to extend the trespass to chattels doctrine to electronic communications that do not harm property."
EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn added:
"The Hamidi case establishes that even if you send electronic communications after recipients tell you not to, you are likely protected from spurious trespass lawsuits as long as there is no harm to computer systems as a direct result of the electronic communications."
What would happen in the UK?
Adopting the trespass argument to prevent the sending of e-mails is not unique. In England in 1999, Virgin.Net sued a former customer, Adrian Paris, after Paris allegedly sent around 250,000 junk e-mails using Virgin's system. As a result, Virgin's entire e-mail service was blacklisted by spam filters, causing loss of reputation.
The company sued, arguing trespass (and breach of contract). However, the case settled out of court, so there was no opportunity to see how an English judge might react to these arguments.