Anyone who has litigated email cases in California has probably dealt with Pacific Trial Attorneys at some point. PTA brings a variety of CIPA and anti-spam claims across the state on behalf of various clients. This week they were dealt a setback in one of these cases. In Laplante v. First Premier Home Warranty Corp., No. CV 26-3545-AS, 2026 WL 3328045 (C.D. Cal. 2026), plaintiff Brady Laplante brought claims against Premier Home Warranty for violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5, Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (trap and trace violations), and common-law intrusion upon seclusion. These charges stemmed from an email Laplante received from the address “WYSa7XZ7oESF@gendafilem.nl” advertising home repair services. After clicking a link in the email, Laplante visited Premier Home Warranty’s website and alleged that he had his data collected by tracking pixels.
Laplante ultimately brought a Motion for Default Judgment, seeking $21,000 in damages. An entry of default is brought against a party who does not defend themselves in a suit brought against them. After entry of default, however, a court has discretion to grant default based on the merits of the case. And in this case the court decided that Laplante had not established an anti-spam claim which overcame federal preemption under the CAN-SPAM Act or a concrete injury sufficient to establish a trap and trace violation.
Generally, state laws that regulate commercial email such as Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5 are preempted by the CAN-SPAM Act. A narrow exception to this rule exists where a state law prohibits “falsity or deception” in commercial emails. To meet this exemption, the false or deceptive information contained in a commercial email must be material. In this case, Laplante argued that because the email address used a “.nl” domain name and had a random address, it made it difficult to trace to Premier Home Warranty. The court was unconvinced – using fictitious “From” names does not on its own mean that an email was materially deceptive. Although the address did not name Premier Home Warranty, the header did. Because of this, and because the subject line of the email advertised home repairs, the court rejected Laplante’s contention that he thought a friend from the Netherlands had sent him an email. The court also rejected Laplante’s argument that the header was misleading because it mentioned two free months of service as there was no information in the record regarding the actual offer, which would have purportedly been on Premier Home Warranty’s website. Laplante’s Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5 claim was tossed for failing to show that it was not preempted by the CAN-SPAM Act.
Laplante’s trap and trace claim was given similar treatment. The court noted that Laplante had not demonstrated Article III standing, requiring him to show concrete injury even if a statutory violation had occurred. Although Laplante introduced general allegations explaining how tracking pixels operate, he did not explain how he suffered any specific intrusion. Such an intrusion would have had to be considered “highly offensive” to be actionable. The court could not establish any harm to Laplante’s privacy and his claim was found to be insufficient for lack of standing.
Laplante was handed an order to show cause, or OSC, in writing within 14 days explaining why his Motion for Default Judgment should not be denied and the case dismissed due to his failure to demonstrate standing or entitlement to relief on his claims. The hearing for the motion was vacated until the court could determine whether or not they would throw out the entire case once Laplante had argued his position. This ruling serves as a reminder that federal courts are much quicker to dismiss anti-spam and CIPA claims based on emails compared to California state courts, who are more willing to let domain traceability claims survive the pleading stage.
If Laplante is somehow able to keep this case alive, we’ll be sure to keep you updated. In the meantime, stay compliant, and stay safe.