Court filing
Exhibit 3 — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 108.4)
Summary
Exhibit 3, Document 108-4, filed 11/17/20 in No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It is a four-page printout of the Bill Analysis of SB 355 (Murray) for the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, Date of Hearing: June 28, 2005, Dave Jones, Chair, as amended June 15, 2005. The analysis gives the subject as Internet Security: Anti-Phishing Act of 2005 and a Senate vote of 37-2, and says the bill would make it unlawful to impersonate an online business to obtain a consumer's personal information. It lists who could bring an action and the available remedies, summarizes existing law, and quotes the author's office on how phishing works.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2020-11-17 |
Cite this document
“Exhibit 3 — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 108.4).”
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, Doc. 108-4, filed 2020-11-17. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-plaid-privacy-cand-359040/2020-11-17-gov-uscourts-cand-359040-108-4-doc-108-4/
, SHA-256 3de27753f732e529696f2114e8c37f19dcd89c8819b992a4488810f452ab6924.Full text
EXHIBIT 3
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 108-4 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 4
3/27/2020
SB 355 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_355_cfa_20050627_124548_asm_comm.html
1/3
BILL ANALYSIS
SB 355
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Dave Jones, Chair
SB 355 (Murray) - As Amended: June 15, 2005
As Proposed To Be Amended
SENATE VOTE : 37-2
SUBJECT : INTERNET SECURITY: ANTI-PHISHING ACT OF 2005
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR A
PERSON TO FALSELY IMPERSONATE ONLINE A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS IN
ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF
UNSUSPECTING CONSUMERS?
SYNOPSIS
This bill would enact the Anti-Phishing Act of 2005. As
explained by the bill's supporters, "Phishing involves the theft
of passwords, account information, and other personal data
through the deceptive distribution of e-mail messages designed
to look like those of legitimate businesses or government
agencies." Unsuspecting consumers who provide their personal
information expose themselves to identity theft and other
unlawful activity. This measure would make phishing unlawful
and would provide for a cause of action against violators of the
Anti-Phishing Act. Supporters state that the bill is critical
in addressing the rapidly expanding phishing problem. The bill
is unopposed.
SUMMARY : Establishes the Anti-Phishing Act of 2005, which
makes it illegal for anyone to request a consumer to provide
personal information by using e-mail, Web sites, or the Internet
to impersonate a legitimate online business. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Provides that it is unlawful for a person to use a Web page,
email, or the Internet to misrepresent that he or she is an
online business and solicit or induce another person to
provide his or her personal information without the authority
or approval of the online business.
2)Provides that the following persons may bring an action
SB 355
Page 2
against a person who violates the Anti-Phishing Act:
a) A person who: i) is engaged in the business of providing
Internet access service to the public, owns a Web page, or
owns a trademark; and, ii) is adversely affected by a
violation of the Act;
b) An individual who is adversely affected by a violation
of the provisions of the Act against a person who has
directly violated it; and
c) The Attorney General or a district attorney.
3)Designates specific available remedies, including the maximum
amount of available damages; and provides that a court may
increase the amount of damages and/or award attorney's fees to
a prevailing plaintiff.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Makes fraud, in general, actionable where the following has
been established: 1) a misrepresentation; 2) knowledge of
falsity; 3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; 4)
justifiable reliance; and 5) resulting damage. (Robinson
Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 979,
990.)
2)Provides that an attorney general or district attorney can
seek an injunction and civil penalties of up to $2,500 per
instance for any unlawful business act or practice; and an
individual may seek an injunction for an unlawful business act
or practice if he or she suffered an injury in fact and lost
money or property as a result. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sections
17200, 17204, 17206.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print, this bill is keyed
fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill would make it illegal for anyone to try to
fraudulently induce a consumer to provide personal information
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 108-4 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 4
3/27/2020
SB 355 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_355_cfa_20050627_124548_asm_comm.html
2/3
online by impersonating a legitimate business (i.e. phishing).
"Phishing" is a widespread technique for obtaining personal
information, and is used to facilitate identity theft and other
crimes. Phishers use fraudulent emails or Web sites to trick
consumers into providing personal information, such as bank
SB 355
Page 3
account numbers and social security numbers, to what is believed
to be a legitimate company.
The author's office explains, "Customers often receive a
legitimate looking email that appears to be from their bank or
[a] retailer with whom they do business. The consumer is often
told via e-mail that a review of their account found 'unusual
activity' and directs them to a phony website where they are
compelled to provide personal information such as their name,
account number and other relevant data. Criminals have become
very good at mimicking legitimate emails and setting up
identical Web sites."
The author's office states, "According to the FBI and the
Internet Crime Complaint Center, 78% of all criminal 'phishers'
are located in the United States. Of these, 15% of all phishing
scams originate in California, the most in the nation. In 2004
alone, there were over 100,000 reports of this fraud with over
76,000 consumers losing money. In reported cases alone,
consumers lost over $193 million in 2003 and 2004. The
California Alliance for Consumer Protection notes it has
received numerous complaints in recent weeks from consumers who
filled out forms on false 'eBay web pages' with their personal
information, thinking that those pages were authentic."
The Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) states,
"Billions of dollars of Californian commerce, jobs and
productivity gains are tied to the spread of Internet commerce
and communications. Confidence in the integrity of personal
information transmitted via the Internet remains an integral
part of the medium's development. However, recent independent
studies, polls and national news reports reveal that phishing is
greatly undermining that confidence, phishing tops the concerns
of many inside and outside of the IT industry as potentially
hobbling the Internet's exciting growth."
Microsoft states it is important to enact legislation to combat
the threat of phishing, in addition to using other tools such as
technology innovation, targeted enforcement, and user education.
Microsoft contends that the "[s]trong laws and adequate
enforcement" provided by SB 355 will be critical to addressing
the phishing problem. Similarly, CompTIA notes that this bill
"puts real 'teeth'" into its prohibitions by making each
separate violation punishable by $500,000 in damages, and
tripling damages where a pattern of phishing has been
SB 355
Page 4
established.
The author has agreed to make a technical amendment to the bill
to clarify that the bill applies whenever a person or entity
misrepresents itself to be any business, not just an "online
business." According to the author, many phishers represent
themselves to be legitimate businesses that may conduct
transactions online, but are not exclusively online businesses.
Therefore, the author makes the following technical amendment:
Page 3, line 1 and line 2, delete "online".
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Alliance for Consumer Protection
CompTIA
Microsoft
TechNet
Opposition
None on File
Analysis Prepared by : Elizabeth Linton / JUD. / (916)
319-2334
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 108-4 Filed 11/17/20 Page 3 of 4
3/27/2020
SB 355 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_355_cfa_20050627_124548_asm_comm.html
3/3
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 108-4 Filed 11/17/20 Page 4 of 4File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.359040.108.4.pdf
- Size
- 66,135 bytes
- SHA-256
- 3de27753f732e529696f2114e8c37f19dcd89c8819b992a4488810f452ab6924
- Original
- PACER (login required)