What is the Online Impersonation Law?

Useful Rulings on Online Impersonation Law

Recent Rulings on Online Impersonation Law

JOSHUA DUBINSKY VS JIM MULHEARN, ET AL.

Penal Code §528.5(e) permits a “person who suffers damage or loss” from a violation of Penal Code §528.5(a) to bring a civil action against the violator. An impersonation is credible “if another person would reasonably believe, or did reasonably believe, that the [Plaintiff] was or is the person who was impersonated.” (Penal Code §528.5(b).) Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to support his impersonation cause of action.

  • Hearing

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY VS SCOTT WILLIAM POWERS ET AL

) (2) Criminal Prosecution and Underlying Civil Action On November 9, 2018, the State of California filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against Powers for violation of Penal Code section 528.5(a) (Criminal Action). (DSS, undisputed fact 5.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

LUU VS TUAZON

Code §§ 528.5 and 530.5 apply. There is no indication that this statute creates a private civil action. Also, there are no allegations the NFCU used a website or other electronic means to impersonate Plaintiff. Therefore, Section 528.5 does not apply. Plaintiff has not provided any authority to show that Section 530.5 allows for a private action. Civil Code §1798.93 allows the victim of identity theft, under Pen.

  • Hearing

CINDY MARTIN VS AMMEC INVESTMENTS INC ET AL

Code, § 528.5 (bold emphasis and underlining added). As noted above, the first cause of action is based upon a violation of Penal Code § 528.5(a), by Cross-Defendants’ alleged impersonation of Ammec Investments by electronic means (electronic storage in the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder) for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding Cross-Complainant. Cross-Complaint, ¶ 35.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

GENOUD V. XXXXXXX

In his current pleading (the Second Amended Complaint) Plaintiff has now included sufficient factual allegations relating to demurring Defendant to support his causes of action for Injunctive Relief, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, e-personation (Penal Code 528.5), and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

  • Hearing

BARICH V. GRIFFIN

Relying on Penal Code sections 528.5 and 529, Plaintiff argues Griffin illegally impersonated Lal in the posting on Google Reviews, therefore her activity is not protected. “[S]ection 528.5 makes it a misdemeanor to impersonate another person through an internet website for the purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.” (In re Rolando S. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 936, 945, fn. 6.)

  • Hearing

BARICH V. GRIFFEN

Relying on Penal Code sections 528.5 and 529, Plaintiff argues Griffin illegally impersonated Lal in the posting on Google Reviews, therefore her activity is not protected. “[S]ection 528.5 makes it a misdemeanor to impersonate another person through an internet website for the purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.” (In re Rolando S. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 936, 945, fn. 6.)

  • Hearing

SALAZAR VS AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION [E-FILE]

Penal Code section 528.5 (count 2 of the cross-complaint) prohibits the credible impersonation via electronic means of another person. It provides: (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable pursuant to subdivision (d).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SALAZAR VS AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION [E-FILE]

Penal Code section 528.5 (count 2 of the cross-complaint) prohibits the credible impersonation via electronic means of another person. It provides: (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable pursuant to subdivision (d).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SALAZAR VS AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION [E-FILE]

Penal Code section 528.5 (count 2 of the cross-complaint) prohibits the credible impersonation via electronic means of another person. It provides: (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable pursuant to subdivision (d).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JASON MERTZ-PRICKETT VS. CHRISTOPHER BRUNO ET AL

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT SET FOR HEARING ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 19, 2018, LINE 6 DEFENDANTS CHRISTOPHER BRUNO and MCKESSON EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION's DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT The Court rules on Defendants' demurrers to the following causes of action: First (Penal Code 528.5): OVERRULED; the statutory language - e.g., 528.5(a) - is broad enough to encompass the alleged conduct; it is not limited to "creation of a fake account."

  • Hearing

HOLLISTER & BRACE, ET AL. V. EDWARD DOE, ET AL.

Code, § 528.5, subd. (b).) The interplay between section 528.5 and the anti-SLAPP statute is discussed in Collier v. Harris (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 41 (Collier). In Collier, the defendant was an education activist involved in the politics of a school district. (Id. at p. 47.) The plaintiff, Julie Collier, was a teacher and parent of children who attended that school district. (Ibid.).

  • Hearing

ADAM PAUL STREGE VS UCSB UNIVERSITY

The warrant was issued with respect to alleged 2014 violations by plaintiff of Penal Code sections 422 [criminal threats], 646.9(b) [stalking in violation of a TRO, injunction or court order]; 653m(a) [use of a telephone or electronic communication with intent to annoy], and 528.5 [impersonating another through use of an internet website or other electronic means].

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

BRENDAN RAHER VS. HUGO DELGADO JR. ET AL

Sustained without leave to amend as to causes of action 3 (negligence), 5 (negligent infliction of emotional distress), and 10 (Penal Code Section 528.5). There is no separate cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress Overruled as to the remaining causes of action. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

  • Hearing

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.