Court filing
Exhibit 6 — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 108.7)
Summary
Exhibit 6, Doc. 108-7, filed November 17, 2020 in No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It is a Bill Analysis of SB 355 (Murray), as amended June 15, 2005, for the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions, with Gloria Negrete McLeod as Chair and a hearing date of June 21, 2005. The analysis gives a Senate vote of 37-2 and describes the bill as establishing the Anti-Phishing Act of 2005. It lists who may bring an action, including the Attorney General or a district attorney, and the recoveries the bill provides, among them the greater of actual damages or $500,000 for a provider of Internet access service, and up to $2,500 per violation as a civil penalty.
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 6 — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 108.7).”
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, Doc. 108-7, 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-359040-108-7-doc-108-7/
, SHA-256 624f5e67477e80cfe2db1f6c866bc1569c65b26abdc2ce9038de8b31636811f1.Full text
EXHIBIT 6
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 108-7 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_20050620_091644_asm_comm.html
1/3
BILL ANALYSIS
SB 355
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 21, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair
SB 355 (Murray) - As Amended: June 15, 2005
SENATE VOTE : 37-2
SUBJECT : Internet regulation: Anti-Phishing Act of 2005.
SUMMARY : Establishes the Anti-Phishing Act of 2005, which
makes it unlawful for any person, through the Internet or other
electronic means, to solicit, request, or take any action to
induce another person to provide identifying information, by
representing itself to be an online business without the
approval or authority of the 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
against a person who violates, or is in violation of, this
code section:
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 code section; and,
b) An individual who is adversely affected by a violation
of the provisions of this code section, but such an
individual may only bring an action against a person who
has directly violated this code section.
3)Provides that an action brought under this code section by a
person who is engaged in the business of providing Internet
access service to the public, owns a Web page, or owns a
trademark, may seek to recover the greater of actual damages
or $500,000.
4)Provides that an action brought by an individual who is
SB 355
Page 2
adversely affected by a violation of the provisions of this
code section may seek to enjoin further violations of those
provisions and recover the greater of three times the amount
of actual damages, or $5,000 per violation.
5)Provides that the Attorney General or a district attorney may
bring an action against a person who violates, or is in
violation of, the provisions of this code section to enjoin
further violations of those provisions and to recover a civil
penalty of up to $2,500 per violation. A court may, in
addition, do either or both of the following:
a) Increase the recoverable damages to an amount up to
three times the damages otherwise recoverable in cases that
the defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of
violating the provisions of this code section; and,
b) Award costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees to a
prevailing plaintiff.
6)Specifies that the remedies provided in this code section do
not preclude the seeking of remedies, including criminal
remedies, under any other applicable provision of law.
7)Provides that multiple violations of the provisions of this
section resulting from any single action or conduct shall
constitute one violation of this code section when the action
is brought by a person who is engaged in the business of
providing Internet access service to the public, owns a Web
page, or owns a trademark.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Does not regulate "phishing" actions, but makes fraud
actionable where the following has been established: (a) a
misrepresentation; (b) knowledge of falsity; (c) intent to
defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance;
or, (e) resulting damage.
2)Provides that the Attorney General or a district attorney can
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 108-7 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_20050620_091644_asm_comm.html
2/3
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.
SB 355
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
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 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."
Support . 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."
SB 355
Page 4
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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AeA
California Alliance for Consumer Protection
CompTIA
Microsoft
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Tracy Rhine / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 108-7 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_20050620_091644_asm_comm.html
3/3
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 108-7 Filed 11/17/20 Page 4 of 4File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.359040.108.7.pdf
- Size
- 64,756 bytes
- SHA-256
- 624f5e67477e80cfe2db1f6c866bc1569c65b26abdc2ce9038de8b31636811f1
- Original
- PACER (login required)