Yes. Without some kind of existing contract in place, they're meaningless.
> Or is it legally enforceable to send an email and forbid "copying" or publishing/disclosing the contents?
Only in extremely rare circumstances. It can be legally useful to put a note saying "Hey, this email contains trade secrets. If it was accidentally sent to you, you might want to think twice about further disseminating or selling these trade secrets." But the case law on this is quite weak, and putting the disclaimer on every email even if they don't contain trade secrets may be counter-productive by diluting the claim even in cases where it actually would apply. It's debatable but many legal scholars would assume similarly for a disclaimer on every single email saying "This is attorney-client privileged." unless maybe your business is a law firm.
https://about.usps.com/publications/pub300a/pub300a_v04_revi...
I'm not sure that it has been applied to email, but that would make for some very interesting cases. (Is Intellectual Property merchandise? Rights assigned to the content of the message?)
IANAL. However I find that with law, you can just imagine how sociopaths would abuse a system. If you don't see that happening, then that's not how the system works.
> READ CAREFULLY. By reading this email, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
So if such signatures are enforceable then his signature is too, which nullifies the whole thing.
I'd assume that's unenforceable. You agree something by agreeing it, not just by reading the text of the agreement. How can you agree something you haven't yet finished reading?
Anyone arguing that it is invalid and unenforceable is arguing to invalidate their own, equally unenforceable ‘private and confidential’ note at the bottom of their original emails.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Neither. The purpose of this language isn’t to bind the recipient; it’s to guard against claims that the sender waived privilege.
> “inadvertent disclosure” of privileged material does not operate as a waiver so long as (i) the privilege holder took “reasonable steps to prevent disclosure”; and (ii) the privilege holder took “reasonable steps to rectify the error.”
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/bu...
If you send me an unsolicited email, you can't bind me legally by appending a stack of demands and requirements. Much the same would apply to printed correspondence sent by post. I am not bound by your demands unless I have signed a contract with you to that effect. Random lawyers can't impose conditions on me just by writing to me.
So yes, they're empty words, like a lot of what lawyers write.
/me not a lawyer.
> PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail, its contents, and attachments are private and confidential and is intended for the recipient only. Any disclosure, copying or unauthorized use of such information is prohibited.
Can someone with knowledge comment on this practice? Are these just empty words? Or is it legally enforceable to send an email and forbid "copying" or publishing/disclosing the contents?