Hartley thrown out: Good news for permission, bad news for spammers

Here's Mickey Chandler in one of his new videos talking about a recent decision of potential interest to those in email marketing land. This case is one of a number of recent cases alleging that open tracking is bad and evil and ultimately the allegations here don't really strike me much to write home about (as I don't think open tracking is evil), but what do I know, as I am not a lawyer. 

Mickey, however, is a lawyer and found something very interesting in the court's opinion regarding Hartley -- ultimately reinforcing why permission rules. 

Check out the video above, or click on through to Mickey's blog to read more about it there.

1 Comments

Comments

  1. "[A]s I don't think open tracking is evil" is actually a big deal in this kind of case where the Plaintiff says that the issue is like "intrusion upon seclusion." One of the things they have to prove is that the intrusion is "highly offensive to a reasonable person." A big part of the reason why Hartley lost here is because the judge didn't think that the tracking pixels were highly offensive in the context of "email you asked for."

    Not that we aren't kind of biased, but "highly offensive" is more along the lines of "cameras in the changing room" than "security camera on the front porch." It's not an easy bar to clear.

    ReplyDelete

Comments policy: Al is always right. Kidding, mostly. Be polite, please and thank you.