A Tel Aviv small claims court awarded ₪775 to a man who sued a small business for ₪38,900 over 31 marketing emails. The ruling by Judge Keren Shemesh (small claims case 69384-12-25) was published on 31 October 2026. The court found that the business did break Israel's anti-spam law. The award was cut because the recipient admitted he never clicked the unsubscribe button, and had even signed up to the mailing list again to see whether the violations would continue.
Any business that sends a newsletter, an email promotion or SMS messages can take something from both sides of this case. A technical violation still costs money. A recipient who ignores a working unsubscribe button, though, should not expect the maximum the law allows.
Thirty-one emails without the label
The defendant is a tarot reader who runs a small business. Between July and November 2025 the plaintiff received 31 emails from her about tarot cards, numerology and channeling, none marked as advertising ("פרסומת"). This was a follow-on claim. In an earlier case over 69 messages he was awarded ₪25 per message with no costs, and the district court refused him leave to appeal.
The defendant said every message carried an unsubscribe button and that she added the word "advertising" after the first judgment. She said she had trouble finding him on her list because he used several email addresses. She also argued that the texts are gifts she writes, not advertising.
The plaintiff said he has not clicked links for years, unsubscribe links included, for fear of viruses. He argued that the earlier lawsuit was itself a removal request. Later in his testimony he admitted he did not unsubscribe because he wanted to see whether the violations continued, and that he signed up again to test whether the business was following the law. According to the ruling, he re-registered in June 2026 from a different address that did not make clear it was him.
A loss for the business, at a small price
Israel's Communications Law lets a court award up to ₪1,000 for each unlawful advertising message, without the recipient having to prove damage. The judge stressed that this is a ceiling, not a rate. The court weighs enforcement, deterrence and the scale of the violation.
The consumer protection claim failed because the business's details, including a phone number, appeared in the messages. On spam, the business did not walk away clean. Once the plaintiff made clear he did not want the messages, it had a duty to remove him. The defendant could not prove he had consented, so the court found a technical breach of the anti-spam provisions and of the Consumer Protection Law.
The recipient's conduct counts too
Clicking unsubscribe is easy, immediate and simple, the judge wrote. She found the plaintiff avoided it on purpose, as part of a pattern of bad faith. A working unsubscribe button creates a reasonable expectation that anyone who wants out will use it. Ignoring it over several messages amounts to a kind of silent consent, and in any case to contributory fault close to 100%.
The judge relied on the Supreme Court's Facebook ruling, under which a recipient's bad faith reduces the compensation and in some cases eliminates it. She adopted the ₪25 per message figure from the earlier case and awarded no costs, citing the plaintiff's conduct and the gap between what he claimed and what he got. She also noted that he signed up again right after filing suit and may complain about further violations.
Before the next newsletter goes out
The low award came from the plaintiff's conduct. A recipient who clicked unsubscribe and kept getting emails would not have ended up in the same place. So the basics still apply to every marketing message: the "פרסומת" label, the sender's identity and contact details, and an unsubscribe link that works.
What sank the defendant happened away from the button. The plaintiff told the business he wanted no more messages through another channel, the earlier lawsuit, and the business did not take him off the list. A removal request that does not come through the button still means removing that address, and preferably any other address known to belong to the same person. Keep a record of when and how each recipient signed up: in this case, the defendant could not prove consent.
A small claims ruling does not bind other judges. It does show how the Supreme Court's rule plays out in an ordinary case between a small business and a serial plaintiff.