Hi CIPAWorld! The Central District of California just dismissed a putative class action filed by Scott Ferrell’s firm against The Savings Bank Mutual Life Insurance Company of Massachusetts (“SBLI”) for allegations of deceptive spam emails in violation of the CA Anti-Spam law (California Business & Professions Code § 17529.5), the California Trap and Trace Law (Cal. Penal Code § 638.51), and the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. Bianca Garcia v. The Sav. Bank Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Mass., No. 2:26-CV-07036-MWC-RAO, 2026 WL 2671276 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2026).
On September 10, 2026, Judge Michelle Williams Court granted SBLI’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff received a “spam” email with a forged header and deceptive subject line that appeared to come from the domain “beautyhealth.net.” The email advertised term life insurance and contained a link that directed the plaintiff to SBLI’s website. The plaintiff also alleged that visiting the site caused tracking pixels to be installed on her device, allowing data brokers to fingerprint her and track her across the internet.
SBLI filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) which argued that it had no ties to California and no connection to the rogue email. SBLI is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Woburn, Massachusetts. Because SBLI is not at home in California, the court concluded it lacked general jurisdiction.
The court then analyzed whether it had specific jurisdiction using the “purposeful direction” test. SBLI provided a declaration from its Senior Vice President of Direct/Digital Sales and Marketing, demonstrating that the specific “Click-Key” in the plaintiff’s email was not associated with SBLI or its authorized email marketing provider, Madrivo. The investigation revealed that the email domain was registered in India, which neither SBLI nor its marketing partner use.
The court ruled that the unilateral activity of an independent third-party marketer does not satisfy the intentional act requirement for specific jurisdiction. The plaintiff tried to argue that SBLI’s operation of its website—which included a California Privacy Policy—was enough to establish jurisdiction. The court rejected this argument because the plaintiff’s alleged injuries arose from the transmission of the “spam” email, not from the operation of a nationally accessible website.
The plaintiff also requested limited jurisdictional discovery to see if a marketing agent was generating traffic for SBLI, but the court denied the request as a “fishing expedition.”
The court granted the motion to dismiss but gave the plaintiff twenty-one days to file a Second Amended Complaint.
We will keep watching the docket to see if she tries again.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]