An unsubscribe link in an advertisement does not reduce compensation in a spam lawsuit

Unsubscribe link in messages: The Spam Law stipulates compensation of NIS 1,000 for each unsolicited advertisement sent to a recipient (with exceptions), regardless of an unsubscribe link in the email. Supreme Court Justice A. Rubinstein initially suggested that the presence of an unsubscribe option could mitigate the compensation. However, a week later, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary.

Stop Spam: Know Your Rights

Unwanted ads fill our phones and inboxes. They push products, services, or donations. Did you get a message without saying yes? Or after you said no? That is likely spam.

Your Right to Compensation

The law protects you. You can get NIS 1,000 per message. No need to prove harm. This deters unwanted advertising.

Unsubscribe Links and Your Safety

Many spam messages have unsubscribe links. But many people do not click them. Security concerns are the main reason. Advertisers used to argue this. They said not clicking meant you failed to act. They wanted less compensation.

Supreme Court Clarifies Spam Law

Magistrate courts heard these cases. Rulings were often inconsistent. But in July 2014, the Supreme Court weighed in. This brought clarity to the law.

The Glessberg Ruling: A Brief Look

Ziv Glessberg sued for spam. He received 15 unwanted messages. Some came after he asked them to stop. He won but appealed the low payout. It was NIS 150 per message before he asked to stop. It was NIS 500 per message after. His total was NIS 8,250.

Glessberg’s Appeal Reaches High Court

His district court appeal failed. So he went to the Supreme Court. His case joined a similar one. In July 2014, Justice Rubinstein ruled. Glessberg got more than double: NIS 17,500. This ruling addressed spam compensation. It covered cases with an unsubscribe option.

Key Points from Glessberg

1. Spam law deters bad actors. It encourages victims to act. Focus is on the violation. Not on specific harm.
2. Sender conduct is key. Recipients do not have to mitigate damages. This includes not needing to unsubscribe. But good faith still matters.
3. The starting point is NIS 1,000. Reductions need mitigating facts.
4. An unsubscribe option could lower compensation. This included unsubscribe links.

The Hazani Ruling: A Major Shift

Just one week later, another case came up. Mr. Hazani sued for 27 spam messages. They came across 13 email accounts. This spanned over a year.

Hazani’s Fight and Its Outcome

Hazani first received very little: NIS 1,000. His district appeal failed. They said he did not mitigate harm. He did not click the unsubscribe link. He then appealed to the Supreme Court. Compensation and mitigation were again discussed.

Supreme Court Reverses Course

The Supreme Court accepted Hazani’s appeal. He received much more: NIS 25,000. Crucially, it overturned Glessberg’s decision. The court restated recipient’s rights. There is no duty to mitigate damages. Sender conduct remains paramount.

Why Unsubscribe Links Don’t Reduce Payouts

Unlike Glessberg, Hazani highlighted risks. Clicking unsubscribe links can be unsafe. So, an unsubscribe option won’t cut compensation. It undermines deterrence. It hurts enforcement goals.

Impact of the Hazani Decision

This ruling affects both sides. Advertisers might send more spam. They’d just add an unsubscribe link. Recipients might not pursue claims. Courts still decide compensation. But an unsubscribe option is not a factor.

For a comprehensive guide on the Spam Law, a complete guide for the harassed.