By Matthew Kalman
Jerusalem—A judge in Tel Aviv’s small-claims court has fined Tel Aviv University because the institution refused to stop sending a student unsolicited promotional e-mails.
Judge Ronen Ilan fined the university 2,000 shekels (approximately $525) plus 300 shekels ($79) in costs for violating an Israeli law that forbids sending promotional e-mails against the wishes of the recipient.
The university had argued that it supplied and owned the e-mail service, and that students checked off a box when they opened their e-mail accounts that said they agreed to receive commercial messages at the discretion of the university. The judge said the agreement was too general and must be reversible.
Guy Mor, a second-year law student and a member of the editorial board of the Tel Aviv University Law Review, received an e-mail in February promoting a course in English language for business and immediately requested in writing that his name be removed from the distribution list. The university refused on the grounds that it owned the e-mail service and that it was technically impossible to delete one student from the list. After receiving three more e-mails and three more refusals, Mr. Mor filed suit.
A person can agree to receive promotional material and afterwards change his mind, said Judge Ilan in his decision.
11 Responses to Tel Aviv University Is Fined for Sending Junk E-Mail
performance_expert2 - August 26, 2010 at 5:58 am
Much of US retail has turned into a harassment / solicitation culture. I recently asked a worker how I could make my order if they were soliciting me with offers? At corporate US retail stores, a person walks in the door and is immediately interrupted and asked personal questions by strangers, “Hi. How ARE You?” You walk into a grocery store and you have three new best friends it seems. It is horrid and false and demeaning for both workers and clients. In the US, at many restaurants, the waitstaff interrupt the diner several times during the meal. There is a fake but real demand of expected acceptance of this as if it is social, but it is not social. It is repeatedly being interrupted by a stranger, interrupted and solicited.
mart7624 - August 26, 2010 at 9:08 am
There is no apartheid in Israel. non-Jewish citizens are free to come and go as they please. This is the only country in the Middle East that conducts regular and free elections. Despite their desire to slaughter every Jew they meet, arabs enjoy a comfortable standard of living and reveal no desire to remove to any of the 23 dysfunctional states in the arab world that are (mis)governed by corrupt and incompetent governments. Half of the Jewish population in Israel is their because they were dispossessed and thrown out of arab countries during 1948-1951. Few seem to remember this refugee problem because it was solved humanely by Israel.
drjeff - August 26, 2010 at 10:26 am
Israel has a very interesting legal system, with a Supreme Court that is very liberal and much stronger than ours, since they don’t have a constitution, so they can literally do whatever they feel like. The Israeli Supreme Court has pretty consistently taken a liberal position in pretty much every issue, from consumer protections (like this) to the rights of Arab citizens of Israel (of which there are lots).When I was there, the vast majority of the Arab citizens I met there were grateful to live in a country where they can have their civil rights protected by the force of law, and still get good felafel. They feel only such place today is Israel. The ones I met felt that “the troublemakers” were ruining a good thing, and were quick to point out that Arafat, who started it all, was a college-educated engineer from a wealthy family in Egypt. They seemed to think he was sincere in wanting fame and fortune.
drjeff - August 26, 2010 at 10:30 am
Oh, I meant to add, this case doesn’t necessarily portend anything for American law. Unless or until President Obama gets to appoint a couple more justices, the American Supreme court is much more conservative than the Israeli one, and it’s also much more limited by the U.S. Constitution in its opportunities for judicial activism.
swish - August 26, 2010 at 10:33 am
Oh, mart7624, your argument would have sounded so much more reasonable if you had not characterized Israeli Arabs as having the “desire to slaughter every Jew they meet.”I have (Jewish) relatives who have lived in Israel for years. They have Arab friends and neighbors. No slaughtering has been contemplated among any of them, as far as I can tell.
vatican - August 26, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Don’t people know there’s a “delete” button and a redirection to the junk folder option? Going to court for this sort of mundane incident is beyond being ridiculous.
drjeff - August 26, 2010 at 3:52 pm
@swish-Indeed, a Jewish friend I stayed with for part of my trip told me the biggest problem for him personally of the “difficulties” was that the Arab fellow who had been building a nice custom bookshelf in his living room was having trouble getting out of his neighborhood to finish it. At the time, he had a wife and babies at home, and he worked miles away. They were friendly, and he and didn’t mind having him in his house while he was out.Oh, and the Arab guy was having trouble getting out of his neighborhood because there were some “troublemakers” who didn’t want him leaving to go work for Jews.Despite the best efforts of Arafat and Al Quaeda and some others, most Arab folks want the same thing almost everyone else does: to have a decent life for themselves and their children. It’s such a shame the troublemakers have been so successful (with encouragement from the Nobel committee).
davi2665 - August 26, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Editors: Thank you for removing the spam from the previous #4 comment. That spot now is occupied by a thoughtful comment. Keep up the good work of getting rid of the spammers who advertise in the comments section of articles.
llevitt1 - August 26, 2010 at 4:44 pm
No. 1: Be appreciative of waitstaff checking on you after you’ve had your main dish for awhile. They’re required to do so; if they don’t, and you later complain or sue them for something, they have no defense. But when you answer that all’s fine, they’s substantially off the hook.
jabberwocky12 - August 28, 2010 at 12:44 am
@vatican : you do have a point, partially, but not entirely.One of the reasons is that students are routinely told that e-mail is an official method of communication, so information about classes, exams, etc, are sent out using the system. This means that students (and staff) are obliged to read everything sent by university offices. So the student first has to read the circular carefully before deleting – too many circulars, and this becomes a waste of the students’ time.This is a case of the university’s abusing the fact that it has a captive audience.In this case, the students proceeded properly – they didn’t first jump to the courts, but made a reasonable request that is internationally accepted – unsolicited commercial mail is considered spam. If the receiver objects, s/he must have an “opt out” option. After three requests, and being denied three times, the court was the only other option.Personally, I would like this to be seen as a precedent, because, all over the world, institutions (not only universities) do this, and it needs to stop before it becomes the “norm” and thereby justified simply because “everybody” does it.
22118130 - August 31, 2010 at 5:50 pm
What I particularly like are spam e-mails where unsubscribing is burdensome. I have encountered several where, when you chose the unsubscribe option, to discontinue receiving e-mails, the spammer asks you for information such as a log in. As if I asked to receive their spam e-mails in the first place, which I did not! There should be more laws like in Israel. For mailings received through the USPS as well. All of us should have the option, as with the Do Not Call List, of discontinuing communications we choose not to receive. I agree with the late Justice William O. Douglas, that we should not have to be someone else’s captive audience.