Compuserve Inc. v. Cyber Promotions

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio · 1997 · Torts

trespass to chattelsinternetspampropertytortsunsolicited emailbulk emailspam

Facts

CompuServe operated a proprietary computer network through which its subscribers received Internet e-mail, and incoming messages to CompuServe subscribers were processed and stored on CompuServe's equipment. Defendants were in the business of sending unsolicited bulk e-mail advertisements and continued sending increasing volumes of such messages to CompuServe subscribers after CompuServe told them to stop using its equipment for that purpose. CompuServe installed filtering software to block the messages, but defendants altered their systems and message headers to evade those filters and conceal the true origin of the transmissions. CompuServe presented evidence that the mass mailings burdened its finite processing and storage capacity, generated subscriber complaints, caused some subscribers to terminate accounts, and harmed its goodwill.

Issue

Whether a sender of unsolicited bulk e-mail commits trespass to chattels by intentionally transmitting large volumes of messages through a service provider's proprietary computer equipment after the provider has revoked consent and attempted to block the transmissions. The court also considered whether the defendants could rely on the First Amendment to continue sending such messages and whether a preliminary injunction should issue.

Rule

A trespass to chattels occurs when a defendant intentionally uses or intermeddles with another's chattel without privilege, and liability exists when the interference causes actual harm, including impairment of the chattel's condition, quality, or value, deprivation of use for a substantial time, or harm to some legally protected interest of the possessor. In the context of computer systems, intentional transmission of substantial volumes of unsolicited electronic messages to proprietary equipment after consent has been revoked can constitute actionable trespass when it diminishes the value of the equipment by consuming processing power and storage capacity or harms the possessor's goodwill and customer relationships. The First Amendment does not protect such conduct against a private property owner's enforcement of neutral trespass law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakefront MailNet, a private e-mail service based in Cleveland, stores incoming messages for subscribers on its own servers. After receiving repeated complaints, it told BrightPath Ads, a Phoenix marketing firm, not to send bulk ads to addresses hosted on Lakefront MailNet, but BrightPath kept transmitting hundreds of thousands of messages that consumed storage space and processing capacity, though no hardware was physically damaged.

If Lakefront MailNet sues BrightPath for trespass to chattels, which is the strongest argument that BrightPath is liable?

Explanation. Trespass to chattels does not require physical dispossession or physical damage. Intentional electronic transmissions directed to another’s computer equipment can qualify as intermeddling, and liability exists where the conduct impairs the condition, quality, or value of the chattel or harms another legally protected interest. Here, the strongest basis is the burden on finite storage and processing resources after revoked consent, which diminishes the equipment’s value to the service provider. (Derived from Compuserve Inc. v. Cyber Promotions (1997).)