CompuServe
Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.
United
States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 1997.
962
F.Supp. 1015.
Prosser,
p. 74-78
Facts: Cyber Promotions sent spam
to CompuServe customers. CompuServe sued
under the theory of trespass to chattels, saying that Cyber Promotions is
“intermeddling” with CompuServe’s servers.
Issue: Can an online service
prevent a company from sending unsolicited e-mail?
Rule:
Trespass to
chattels occurs when the defendant intrudes upon the plaintiff’s property such
that damage results.
Analysis: The defendants say that
only physical dispossession or interference is required for trespass to
chattels to lie. The court argues that
physical dispossession is only one of several ways a chattel can be interfered
with. The court points out that the
defendants interference with CompuServe’s computers caused actual harm to the
company and its customers.
Conclusion: The court grants the
plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the defendants.
Notes
and Questions
1. If I had seen Glidden
in my Prosser, Wade, and Schwartz Torts casebook in law school, maybe I would
have remembered it, but I don’t think it would apply. The court in Glidden was using
evidence of one tort as a defense against another. If Cyber Promotions was suing me for a tort
which they suffered while spamming my servers, I would argue, like Szybiak,
that I can’t be found guilty of a tort because the injury occurred while Cyber
Promotions was engaged in another tort.
If Glidden did come to mind, it would remind me that I must prove
that my client suffered actual damages in order to recover on their trespass
to chattels claim.
2. The standard
set down in this case is that trespass to chattels may lie for sending unwanted
e-mails if the value of the computer equipment involved is diminished. The first case of the disgruntled employee
would seem to fit this pattern, because presumably sending so many e-mails
would affect the value of the computers housing the company’s e-mail
system. The damages that could be
collected would probably be miniscule, especially if the company involved is
not primarily in the Internet business. It
would be pretty far fetched, however, for an individual user to prove actual damages
due to spam e-mails from Cyber Promotions.
The typical home user does not handle volumes of e-mail that would
actually slow down their computer or affect other activities with it. Anyway, at best, the person could recover the
entire value of their computer, and with court costs and the opportunity cost
of their time and everything else, it would be a rather unwise suit.