commercial emails from those accounts. Depending on the co 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (interpreting Yermian as holding that requiring government to prove defendant knowingly and willingly made a false statement satisfied the “evil-meaning mind” requirement with respect to that element of the crime). Although Defendants ask the Court to consider online deception an innocent peccadillo or even a positive good, that is not the view of this statute, which is particularly aimed at deception. Nor is it appropriate for reasons of policy. Deception, even where it is not criminal, is neither innocent nor worthy of any constitutional protection — particularly in the commercial context. See BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 576, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996) (<HOLDING>). See also Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433
recognizing the financial position of the defendant as a factor in assessing a punitive damages award holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages holding that trickery or deceit was one factor rendering a civil defendants conduct more reprehensible and supporting an award of punitive damages holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that evidence of a defendants financial condition is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages