Intel Corp. v. Hamidi
114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 244, 94 Cal. App. 4th 325 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The intentional sending of unsolicited electronic mail to a company's private computer system constitutes an actionable trespass to chattels, even without physical damage to the system, if it causes disruption to the business and loss of employee productivity.
Facts:
- After being fired by Intel Corporation, Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi began to air grievances against the company.
- Hamidi, acting as a spokesperson for a group called FACE-Intel, obtained Intel's confidential employee email address list.
- On six separate occasions over a nearly two-year period, Hamidi sent mass emails criticizing Intel's employment practices to between 8,000 and 35,000 Intel employees.
- Intel maintained a corporate policy that limited the use of its proprietary email system to company business.
- On March 17, 1998, Intel sent Hamidi a letter demanding that he stop sending the mass emails to its employees.
- Hamidi refused to stop and actively took steps to evade Intel's security measures designed to block his emails.
Procedural Posture:
- Intel Corporation filed a complaint against Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi in the trial court, alleging nuisance and trespass to chattels.
- Intel filed a motion for summary judgment.
- Before the ruling, Intel dropped its claim for damages and its nuisance theory, proceeding solely on the trespass to chattels claim for injunctive relief.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Intel.
- The trial court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Hamidi from sending unsolicited emails to addresses on Intel's computer systems.
- Hamidi, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Third District. Intel Corporation is the respondent.
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 the intentional sending of a large volume of unwanted electronic mail to a company's private computer system, which causes no physical damage or impairment to the system but results in lost employee productivity, constitute an actionable trespass to chattels for which an injunction may be issued?
Opinions:
Majority - Morrison, J.
Yes. The intentional sending of mass, unwanted emails to a company's private server constitutes a trespass to chattels, even without physical damage, if it harms the company's business interests. The court reasoned that electronic signals are sufficiently tangible to support a trespass claim. The harm required for an injunction is not limited to physical damage to the computer system (the chattel) but can be established by showing disruption to the business, such as the loss of productivity from thousands of employees being distracted by the emails and the time security personnel spent trying to block them. The court rejected Hamidi's First Amendment defense, finding no state action because the injunction was merely a court's enforcement of a neutral, common law trespass rule on private property. Similarly, California's broader free speech protections do not apply because Intel's private email system is not a public forum like a shopping center and is not freely open to the public for expressive activity.
Dissenting - Kolkey, J.
No. Sending unsolicited emails that cause no harm to the recipient's computer system is not an actionable trespass to chattels. The dissent argued that the tort of trespass to chattels requires actual injury to the chattel or dispossession of it. Here, Intel's computer system was not damaged, impaired, or slowed down. The only 'injury' claimed was the time employees spent reading the emails, which is not the type of harm to a possessory interest that the tort was designed to protect. Extending the tort in this manner would transform a property tort into a tool to regulate speech and would lead to absurd results, such as treating unwanted phone calls or faxes as trespasses. This expansion of common law is a matter best left to the legislature.
Analysis:
This appellate decision controversially expanded the common law tort of trespass to chattels by applying it to electronic communications that caused no physical or functional harm to computer systems. By recognizing lost employee productivity as sufficient 'injury,' the court created a new avenue for companies to block unwanted electronic messages, effectively treating their computer networks as private property akin to real estate. While the California Supreme Court later reversed this holding, this opinion remains a significant case study in the judicial struggle to adapt traditional property torts to the digital age and highlights the tension between private property rights and free speech on the internet.
