Fundamentally, the court seems to be treating this identically to a scenario where the user was ignorant and failed to read their inbox. The court seems to be completely disregarding that it was misdelivered into spam. The word "spam" doesn't even appear more than twice in the ruling (one of which is in an irrelevant footnote)! Why the heck is the court completely oblivious to that fact when weighing the facts on eac…
Spam categorization isn't a delivery issue. The delivery is the same whether you, upon taking delivery, toss the message into a bin labeled "spam" or one labeled "inbox".