Misleading advertising: domain and subdomain names.
The bill significantly impacts state laws related to domain name registration and usage. It stipulates that a person acting with bad faith cannot traffic in or use such names without proper consent, which alters how individuals and businesses decide to register domain names. The provision for presumed bad faith if consent is not obtained marks a critical shift, potentially protecting many public figures and businesses from misrepresentation and abuse of their identities online.
Senate Bill No. 342, introduced by Hertzberg, amends Sections 17525 and 17526 of the Business and Professions Code. This bill addresses the unlawful registration and use of domain names and subdomain names that are identical or confusingly similar to the personal names of living individuals or deceased personalities, as well as names of certain entities involved in the sale of goods. The intention is to protect individuals and brands from misleading advertising practices, especially in the context of internet commerce.
Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB 342 has been positive among consumer protection advocates and businesses who wish to safeguard their identities and trademarks. Supporters argue it will enhance the integrity of online commerce by reducing deceptive practices. However, some stakeholders might express concern that overly stringent regulations could hinder legitimate uses of similar domains where dissent or commentary is intended, highlighting a tension between protection against fraud and freedom of expression.
One notable point of contention within the discussions around SB 342 could arise from the balance it tries to strike between protecting personal and brand identities and allowing fair use of domain names that may be similar for non-commercial or parody purposes. Additionally, while the bill creates a private right of action for those wronged by bad faith registrations, critics may argue whether this creates an excessive litigation environment or if the burden of proof placed on defendants is fair in cases it covers.