Commonwealth Energy Corp. v. Investor Data Exchange, Inc.

Good Law
1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 390·110 Cal. App. 4th 26·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 984·2003 Daily Journal DAR 7299·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5798
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 2003G030377California2,443 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

I

In this case we affirm the denial of defendant Investor Data Exchange’s anti- SLAPP suit motion. Just because a telemarketing pitch is made on behalf of a firm that sells information does not mean that the pitch is being made in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.

II

During his tenure as CEO of plaintiff Commonwealth Energy Corporation, Fred Bloom gave Henry Gomez, an employee of Investor Data, a list of Commonwealth’s shareholders. Investor Data then used the list to “contact” the shareholders on the phone and offer them Investor Data’s services, including a free one-year membership.

The contact just mentioned can most accurately be described as “telemarketing,” with most of the pejorative connotations which the word has come to bear in the early 21st century. (E.g., Probst, Telemarketing, Commercial Speech, and Central Hudson: Potential First Amendment Problems for Indiana Code Section 24-4.7 and Other “Do-Not-Call” Legislation (2002) 37 Val. U. L.Rev. 347, 347 [“Which do Americans hate more; Osama Bin Laden or telemarketers?”].) As acknowledged in the appellant’s opening brief, the callers were instructed to follow a “carefully drafted…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.

Commonwealth Energy Corp. v. Investor Data Exchange, Inc. · Court of Appeal of California · 2003 | Caselegis