Intel Corp. v. Hamidi

Supreme Court of California · 2003 · Torts

TortsPropertytrespass to chattelsemailactual damageinternettrespass to chattelscomputer systems

Facts

Hamidi, a former Intel employee, sent six mass emails over 21 months to thousands of Intel employee addresses criticizing Intel's employment practices and directing employees to a website. He did not breach Intel's computer security barriers, and he removed recipients from his mailing list when they requested it. The messages caused discussion among employees and managers, and Intel employees and staff spent time reacting to and trying to block the messages. But the record showed no physical damage to Intel's computers, no slowdown or impairment of their functioning, no dispossession, and no deprivation of Intel's use of the system.

Issue

Does a person commit trespass to chattels by sending unwanted mass emails through another company's email system when the messages do not damage the computers, impair their functioning, or deprive the owner of their use, but do cause employee distraction and efforts to block the messages? Can injunctive relief issue on those facts?

Rule

Under California law, trespass to chattels is not actionable without evidence that the defendant's intentional interference caused actual or threatened injury to the personal property or to the possessor's legally protected interest in that property. For electronic communications, the tort does not encompass messages that neither damage the recipient computer system nor impair its functioning, and consequential losses from the content of the messages, such as employee distraction or time spent blocking them, are not injuries to the chattel itself.

🔒

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.

Nora Velez, a former employee of Sierra Forge Labs in Denver, sends four unsolicited emails over eight months to 6,000 current employees at their company addresses criticizing management. The messages are delivered normally, do not slow the servers, do not damage hardware or software, and employees who ask to be removed are removed, but managers complain that workers spend time reading and discussing them.

Under California trespass-to-chattels law as stated by the majority, is Sierra Forge most likely to prevail on a trespass claim against Nora?

Explanation. The majority held that trespass to chattels requires actual or threatened injury to the personal property or to the possessor's legally protected interest in that property. Harms flowing from the content of messages—such as distraction, discussion, and lost productivity—are not injuries to the computer system itself when the system works as intended and suffers no functional impairment, dispossession, or measurable loss of use.