Court filing
Exhibit 4 — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 108.5)
Summary
Exhibit 4, Doc. 108-5, filed November 17, 2020 in the Plaid Privacy case, No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It reproduces a Senate Floor Analysis of SB 355, the Anti-Phishing Act of 2005, from the Senate Rules Committee. The analysis states that the bill prohibits phishing, the act of posing as a legitimate company in an email, Web page, or other Internet communication to trick a recipient into revealing personal information. It says an action may seek to recover the greater of actual damages or five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), and that the Attorney General or a district attorney may seek a civil penalty of up to two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation.
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 4 — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 108.5).”
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, Doc. 108-5, 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-359040-108-5-doc-108-5/
, SHA-256 50042aa2806506d96398b1ee16998d64d6434116364710e7fe98388d70eb2b5f.Full text
EXHIBIT 4
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 108-5 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 5
3/27/2020
SB 355 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_355_cfa_20050826_111121_sen_floor.html
1/4
BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 355|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 355
Author: Murray (D)
Amended: 7/5/05
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-1, 4/5/05
AYES: Dunn, Cedillo, Escutia, Figueroa, Kuehl
NOES: Ackerman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Morrow
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 37-2, 5/26/05
AYES: Aanestad, Alarcon, Alquist, Ashburn, Battin, Bowen,
Campbell, Cedillo, Chesbro, Cox, Denham, Ducheny, Dunn,
Dutton, Escutia, Figueroa, Florez, Kehoe, Kuehl,
Lowenthal, Machado, Maldonado, Margett, McClintock,
Migden, Morrow, Murray, Ortiz, Perata, Poochigian,
Romero, Runner, Simitian, Soto, Speier, Torlakson,
Vincent
NOES: Ackerman, Hollingsworth
NO VOTE RECORDED: Scott
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 64-9, 8/25/05 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Anti-Phishing Act of 2005
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill prohibits phishing, the act of posing
CONTINUED
SB 355
Page
2
as a legitimate company in an email, Web page, or other
Internet communication in order to trick a recipient into
revealing his or her personal information.
Assembly Amendments make a technical/clarifying change by
deleting reference to "online business" to instead refer to
"business."
ANALYSIS : Existing law does not regulate "phishing"
actions, but makes fraud 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.
This bill enacts the Anti-Phishing Act of 2005.
This bill makes it unlawful for a person to use a Web page,
email, or the Internet to misrepresent that he or she is a
business (e.g., to indicate that he or she is or represents
an online business without authorization from that
business) and solicit or induce another person to provide
his or her personal information without the authority or
approval of the business.
Existing law 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. 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.
This bill provides that the following persons may bring an
action against a person who violates or is in violation of
Section 22948.2:
1.A person who (A) is engaged in the business of providing
Internet access service to the public, owns a Web page,
or owns a trademark, and (B) is adversely affected by a
violation of Section 22948.2.
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 108-5 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 5
3/27/2020
SB 355 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_355_cfa_20050826_111121_sen_floor.html
2/4
An action brought under this bill may seek to recover the
greater of actual damages or five hundred thousand
dollars ($500,000).
SB 355
Page
3
2.An individual who is adversely affected by a violation of
Section 22948.2 may bring an action, but only against a
person who has directly violated Section 22948.2.
The bill provides that an action brought under the above
provision may seek to enjoin further violations of Section
22948.2 and recover the greater of three times the amount
of actual damages or $5,000 per violation.
The Attorney General or a district attorney may bring an
action against a person who violates or is in violation of
Section 22948.2 to enjoin further violations of Section
22948.2 and to recover a civil penalty of up to two
thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation in an
action pursuant to the above provisions. A court may, in
addition, do either or both of the following:
1.Increase the recoverable damages to an amount up to three
times the damages otherwise recoverable under subdivision
(a) in cases in which the defendant has engaged in a
pattern and practice of violating Section 22948.2.
2.Award costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees to a
prevailing plaintiff.
The bill specifies that the remedies provided above do not
preclude the seeking of remedies, including criminal
remedies, under any applicable provision of law.
Multiple violations of Sections 22948.2 resulting from any
single action or conduct shall constitute one violation.
Background
"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 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
SB 355
Page
4
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 identical
Web sites.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2005-06 2006-07
2007-08 Fund
Courts Probably not
substantial costs General
Attorney General Probably
not substantial costs General
Potentially offset by awards for
attorneys' fees
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/25/05)
California Alliance for Consumer Protection
Computing Technology Industry Association
Microsoft
Tech Net
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 108-5 Filed 11/17/20 Page 3 of 5
3/27/2020
SB 355 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_355_cfa_20050826_111121_sen_floor.html
3/4
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office states,
"According to the FBI and the Internet Crime Complaint
Center, 78 percent of all criminal "phishers" are located
in the United States. Of these, 15 percent 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.
SB 355
Page
5
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."
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 established.
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Arambula, Baca, Bass, Benoit, Berg,
Bermudez, Blakeslee, Bogh, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan,
Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Coto, Daucher, De La Torre, Dymally,
Evans, Frommer, Garcia, Goldberg, Hancock, Harman, Jerome
Horton, Shirley Horton, Houston, Jones, Karnette, Keene,
Klehs, Koretz, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu,
Matthews, McCarthy, Montanez, Mullin, Nakanishi, Nation,
Nava, Niello, Oropeza, Parra, Pavley, Plescia, Richman,
Ridley-Thomas, Sharon Runner, Ruskin, Saldana, Salinas,
Strickland, Torrico, Tran, Umberg, Vargas, Wolk, Wyland,
Yee
NOES: Cogdill, DeVore, Huff, La Malfa, Leslie, Maze,
SB 355
Page
6
Mountjoy, Spitzer, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Emmerson, Haynes, La Suer, Negrete
McLeod, Walters, Nunez, Vacancy
RJG:nl 8/26/05 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 108-5 Filed 11/17/20 Page 4 of 5
3/27/2020
SB 355 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_355_cfa_20050826_111121_sen_floor.html
4/4
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 108-5 Filed 11/17/20 Page 5 of 5File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.359040.108.5.pdf
- Size
- 68,859 bytes
- SHA-256
- 50042aa2806506d96398b1ee16998d64d6434116364710e7fe98388d70eb2b5f
- Original
- PACER (login required)