Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 16-9-93.1 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 16-9-93.1 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 16-9-93.1

TITLE 16 CRIMES AND OFFENSES

Section 9. Forgery and Fraudulent Practices, 16-9-1 through 16-9-157.

ARTICLE 6 COMPUTER SYSTEMS PROTECTION

16-9-93.1. Misleading transmittal and use of individual name, trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol over computer or telephone network; criminal penalty; civil remedies.

  1. It shall be unlawful for any person, any organization, or any representative of any organization knowingly to transmit any data through a computer network or over the transmission facilities or through the network facilities of a local telephone network for the purpose of setting up, maintaining, operating, or exchanging data with an electronic mailbox, home page, or any other electronic information storage bank or point of access to electronic information if such data uses any individual name, trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol to falsely identify the person, organization, or representative transmitting such data or which would falsely state or imply that such person, organization, or representative has permission or is legally authorized to use such trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol for such purpose when such permission or authorization has not been obtained; provided, however, that no telecommunications company or Internet access provider shall violate this Code section solely as a result of carrying or transmitting such data for its customers.
  2. Any person violating subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
  3. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit an aggrieved party's right to pursue a civil action for equitable or monetary relief, or both, for actions which violate this Code section.

(Code 1981, §16-9-93.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 1505, § 1.)

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 1996, p. 1505, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that nothing in the Act shall prohibit a member of the General Assembly from using the state seal or the Georgia flag which contains the state seal on a home page that is clearly identified as that of the member.

Law reviews.

- For article, "Problems Arising Out of the Use of 'WWW.Trademark.Com': The Application of Principles of Trademark Law to Internet Domain Name Disputes," see 13 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 455 (1997). For note, "Tilting at Windmills: Defamation and the Private Person in Cyberspace," see 13 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 547 (1997). For review of 1996 forgery and fraudulent practices legislation, see 13 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 112 (1997). For note, "Dormant Commerce Clause Limits on State Regulation of the Internet: The Transportation Analogy," see 32 Ga. L. Rev. 889 (1998).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Internet users had standing.

- Internet users challenging the constitutionality of O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93.1 were entitled to a preliminary injunction because they were likely to show that it imposed content-based restrictions not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest, it was vague and overbroad, there was a substantial threat of irreparable injury, and the balance of hardships weighed heavily in plaintiffs' favor. American Civil Liberties Union v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga. 1997).

Internet users had standing to bring an action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93.1 because a credible threat of prosecution existed. American Civil Liberties Union v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga. 1997).

Insufficient evidence in defamation case from social media.

- Judgment notwithstanding the verdict and directed verdicts in a defamation case were affirmed because the plaintiff was properly found to be a public figure in the spheres of running and Christian evangelism and there was no evidence of actual malice as to the social media postings, which alleged that the plaintiff was having multiple affairs with married women and had not completed all of the long distance runs, were true; there was no evidence of violations of O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93 or O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93.1. Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, 299 Ga. 459, 788 S.E.2d 787 (2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 571, 196 L. Ed. 2d 447 (U.S. 2016).

Claim did not state a violation.

- Customer was granted a summary judgment as to a copyright owner's claims of violations of the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act because the Act was not broad enough to cover the actions alleged in that there was no allegation that an appropriation of the owner's intellectual property was achieved by unauthorized use of a computer under O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93(a) and the owner did not allege that the customer used the owner's name on the Internet for the purpose of falsely identifying itself to make O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93.1 applicable. SCQuARE Int'l, Ltd. v. BBDO Atlanta, Inc., 455 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (N.D. Ga. 2006).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Defense of a Domain Name Dispute, 87 Am. Jur. Trials 75.

ALR.

- Validity of state statutes and administrative regulations regulating internet communications under commerce clause and First Amendment of federal constitution, 98 A.L.R.5th 167.

Validity, construction, and application of state computer crime and fraud laws, 87 A.L.R.6th 1.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93.1

Total Results: 2  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Cottrell v. Smith, 299 Ga. 517 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 53 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 8, 2016 | 788 S.E.2d 772

...the “any evidence” test and construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the losing party. Hood v. Smoak, 271 Ga. 86, 86-87 (516 SE2d 301) (1999). A.) GCSPA Claims. Cottrell alleged that Defendants’ conduct constituted a violation or violations of Section 16-9-93.12 of the GCSPA, thereby giving 2 OCGA§ 16-9-93.1 provides: (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, any organization, or any representative of any organization knowingly to transmit any data through a computer network or over the transmission facilities or through th...
...of a violation of any 5 Cottrell contends that the superior court erred in directing a verdict in favor of Defendants on such claims because there was evidence that Defendants’ conduct violated § 16-9-93.1 and § 16-9-93, and because the court mistakenly relied upon ACLU v. Miller, 977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga.,1997) to find that OCGA § 16-9-93.1 is unconstitutional. In ACLU v. Miller, the plaintiff internet users brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of OCGA § 16-9-93.1, and the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction after concluding, inter alia, that the statute is unconstitutionally provision of this article may sue therefor and recover for any damages sustained and the costs of suit....
...view of the analysis and holding in ACLU v. Miller.4 However, the superior court need not have considered any such constitutional challenge because a directed verdict was mandated in light of the statutory requirements of both OCGA § 16-9-93 and OCGA § 16-9-93.1....
...sent: (1) The conduct must be intentional or reckless; (2) The conduct 5 While the superior court initially declined to let counsel for Cottrell give argument regarding its apparent ruling about the constitutionality of OCGA§ 16-9-93.1, it later permitted counsel to argue about Cottrell’s claims in regard to that statute as well as OCGA§ 16-9-93; however, counsel principally argued the evidence in light of the provisions of OCGA§ 16-9-93, and in fact, expressly sta...
Copy

Edible Ip, LLC v. Google, LLC, 869 S.E.2d 481 (Ga. 2022).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 15, 2022 | 313 Ga. 305

...PruittHealth, Inc., 300 Ga. 140, 144-46 (2) (794 SE2d 150) (2016). Edible IP does not allege that Google has diluted the Edible Arrangements trade name by using it in Google’s keyword advertising program. 7 We note that the General Assembly enacted OCGA § 16-9-93.1 in 1996, which, in pertinent part, makes it a crime for any person ....
...trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol . . . which would falsely state or imply that such person . . . has permission or is legally authorized to use [it] for such purpose when such permission or authorization has not been obtained. . . . OCGA § 16-9-93.1 (a)....
...ted activity within its proscription; and is void for vagueness). Relying on Miller, Google argues that Edible IP’s proposed construction of OCGA §§ 51-10-6 and 16-8-2 would render the civil theft statute unconstitutional in the same way as OCGA § 16-9-93.1 and that, under the canon of constitutional doubt, the civil theft 13 Here, Edible IP has not alleged that Google’s use of the “Edible Arrangements” trade name in its keyword advertisi...