California Supreme Court rules in Intel v. Hamidi , refuses to adapt "trespass to chattels" theory to emails

The California Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Hamidi and against Intel, which had filed a lawsuit against the former Intel employee claiming trespass to chattels and seeking an injunction against Hamidi's emails, after he sent several barrages of emails to the company and various of its employees attacking Intel's practices. The court stated: "After reviewing the decisions analyzing unauthorized electronic contact with computer systems as potential trespasses to chattels, we conclude that under California law the tort does not encompass, and should not be extended to encompass, an electronic communication that neither damages the recipient computer system nor impairs its functioning. Such an electronic communication does not constitute an actionable trespass to personal property, i.e., the computer system, because it does not interfere with the possessor's use or possession of, or any other legally protected interest in, the personal property itself. . . . The consequential economic damage Intel claims to have suffered, i.e., loss of productivity caused by employees reading and reacting to Hamidi's messages and company efforts to block the messages, is not an injury to the company's interest in its computers-which worked as intended and were unharmed by the communications-any more than the personal distress caused by reading an unpleasant letter would be an injury to the recipient's mailbox, or the loss of privacy caused by an intrusive telephone call would be an injury to the recipient's telephone equipment." [CommLawAlert]