A person requested to sign up for the mailing list and newsletter of a business from seven different e-mail addresses only to request removal and see whether the request is implemented according to the law.
The Court dismissed the claim and held that high expenses should be paid considering the bad faith and misuse of the law. The rationale behind the “spam law” is to discourage commercial companies from sending unsolicited promotional messages/emails to citizens. Here, the tables have turned and the one harassing the business is the consumer. The consumer was acting in bad faith in the "hope" that the business will miss one of the removal notices submitted through one of the many email addresses he used and through which he registered on his own initiative to receive electronic mail messages, and thus he will be able to file a lawsuit and demand compensation for 26 "spam" messages sent to him. As the purpose of the law is not to train the consumer to be the "spam police" or to engage in enforcement on his own behalf or to ensure internalization of the law in the form of a manipulative registration to a distribution list in false representation in which he wishes to be among the customers of the business, only to check whether the business removes him from a number of e-mail addresses in accordance with the law once requested, a significant expenses should be paid to the business.