Intel Corporation v. Hamidi

Supreme Court of California
1 Cal.Rptr.3d 32 (2003)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The tort of trespass to chattels does not encompass an electronic communication that neither damages the recipient computer system nor impairs its functioning. For an interference with a chattel to be actionable, it must cause actual injury to the personal property or to the possessor's legally protected interest in that property, not merely consequential economic loss resulting from the communication's content.

Facts:

Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi, a former employee of Intel Corporation, formed an organization critical of Intel's employment practices called FACE-Intel.
Over a 21-month period, Hamidi sent six mass e-mails to thousands of current Intel employees using Intel's internal e-mail system.
The e-mails criticized Intel's employment practices and encouraged employees to visit the FACE-Intel website.
Hamidi did not breach any computer security barriers to acquire the employee e-mail addresses.
The e-mails included an offer to remove any recipient from the mailing list upon request, and Hamidi honored all such requests.
The e-mails caused no physical damage or functional impairment, such as slowing down, to Intel's computer system.
The content of the messages, however, caused discussions among employees and managers, and Intel staff spent time attempting to block the messages.
After Intel sent a written demand for Hamidi to stop, he asserted a right to communicate and sent another mass mailing.

Procedural Posture:

Intel Corporation sued Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi and FACE-Intel in a state trial court for trespass to chattels and nuisance.
Intel later dismissed the nuisance claim and waived its request for damages, seeking only an injunction.
The trial court granted Intel's motion for summary judgment.
The trial court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Hamidi from sending unsolicited e-mails to addresses on Intel's computer systems.
Hamidi, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment.
A divided Court of Appeal, the state's intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's decision.
Hamidi, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of California, which granted the petition.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does sending unsolicited electronic mail to a company's computer system, which neither damages the system nor impairs its functioning, constitute an actionable trespass to chattels under California law?

Opinions:

Majority - Werdegar, J.

No, sending electronic communications that do not harm or impair a computer system does not constitute trespass to chattels. California law requires an intentional interference with personal property to have proximately caused injury for the tort of trespass to chattels to lie. Intel's claimed injury—lost productivity due to the e-mails' content—is not an injury to its possessory interest in its computers, which continued to function as intended. This situation is distinct from spam cases like CompuServe, where the sheer volume of messages overburdened the plaintiffs' computer systems, thereby impairing their function. To extend the tort to cover 'impairment by content' would transform it into a remedy for any unwelcome communication, a role better served by other torts such as defamation or interference with prospective economic relations.

Concurring - Kennard, J.

No, using another's equipment to communicate with an authorized user who does not object is not a trespass to chattels unless it damages the equipment or significantly impairs its usefulness. Intel failed to establish that Hamidi's occasional e-mails damaged its computer system or impaired its functioning in any significant way. While unsolicited bulk e-mail is a serious annoyance, the tort of trespass to chattels is not the proper legal remedy where there is no actual injury to the property itself.

Dissenting - Brown, J.

Yes, Hamidi's actions constituted an actionable trespass to chattels. The requisite injury does not need to be physical damage; it can be an impairment of the chattel's value to its owner. Intel invested millions in its computer system to enhance productivity, and the hundreds of thousands of messages Hamidi sent diverted employees from their work, thereby undermining the system's utility and causing tangible economic loss. The unauthorized use of Intel's private property to display a message, regardless of its content, is a trespass because it interferes with Intel's intended use of its property and appropriates company resources for the sender's own purposes.

Dissenting - Mosk, J.

Yes, the repeated, unauthorized transmission of bulk e-mails to Intel's private, proprietary intranet constituted a trespass to chattels. Hamidi's actions were not merely communication on the public Internet but an intrusion into a private system, akin to commandeering a private mailroom. The harm requirement was met by the impairment to the quality and value of the system as a business tool, the costs Intel incurred to block the messages, and the diminished employee productivity. When self-help measures are ineffective, as they were here due to Hamidi's evasiveness, the law must provide a remedy to protect private property from misuse.

Analysis:

This decision significantly narrowed the application of the trespass to chattels tort in the digital realm in California. It established a high bar for plaintiffs, requiring proof of actual harm or functional impairment to a computer system, rather than just consequential economic damages stemming from a message's content. The ruling creates a clear distinction between high-volume spam or robotic crawling that can physically burden a server and lower-volume, content-based messages that merely distract recipients. This precedent prevents the tort from being used as a broad tool to censor any unwelcome electronic communication, pushing plaintiffs with content-based grievances toward other legal theories like defamation or interference with economic relations.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Intel Corporation v. Hamidi (2003)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature