Transcript
A (0:00)
Old Navy sends out an email and the email has false scarcity.
B (0:04)
Subject line says limited time only buy one get one act. Now they want consumers to open the email. Email is incredibly highly converting easy to get people's attraction. The question that went up to the Washington Supreme Court was what is a false or misleading subject line under Washington law? And the Supreme Court came out and said, no, it's a false claim.
A (0:22)
And so here's my understanding of the penalty. $500 correct per email, per email, per recipient, per recipient. So if I send 10,000 person list today only might sound irresistible. But if you send that subject line to a Washington state recipient when the deal's still running next week, you could owe up to $500 per email sent or even more. That's because on April 17, Washington State Supreme Court broadly interpreted SEMA to forbid any factual misstatement in commercial email headers, even if the body clarifies things later. I'm Emma Rainville and I'm here with my co host Ryan Poteed of Gordon Reese. And in this episode of Marketing on Trial, we'll unpack the Brown vs Old Navy decision, what counts as factual vs puffery, how to audit subject lines, and how to avoid turning your next email campaign into a costly legal misstep. Lots going on here, Ryan. I want to attempt to keep this concise, but it's not just Washington state, but we're specifically talking about Washington state because of the stuff that came out in April and because of Brown versus Old Navy. So let's start with Brown versus Old Navy.
B (1:48)
So large retailer sends commercial emails like so many of you do. Subject line says limited time only buy one, get one, you know, act now. Whole reason they want consumers to open the email. Email is incredibly highly converting easy to get people's attraction company moves removes to federal court says, hey, by the way, sorry, you can't state a claim. There's nothing false or misleading in this subject line. Or if there is, it's not concerning the commercial nature of this email, which is what most people thought the statute meant. You can't misrepresent that this is like a public interest piece when it's actually like an ad.
A (2:24)
Right?
B (2:25)
Question gets certified to the Washington Supreme Court. Supreme Court says, nope, this applies to any misstatement or any factual misstatement in the subject line of an email regardless of what's in the body. So I think it was a little bit surprising that the court went this way. But overall it brings Washington statute more in line with California. For instance, 1-752-9 where you can't falsify, falsify or misrepresent header information which includes the, you know, the to from fields and then subject lines.
