Politech mailing list archives

FC: Alleged spammer claims California anti-spam law is unconstitutional


From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 11:03:38 -0500

[Summary: After some guy in California got (allegedly) spammed, he sued the (alleged) spammer for not including ADV: in the Subject: line as required by state law. Alleged spammer got an adverse decision in court last month and is appealing. Ira represents the (alleged) spammer and says the state law violates the U.S. Constitution. He may even be right. What Ira filed is here: http://www.politechbot.com/docs/calif.spam.appeal.020502.pdf --Declan]

--

From: "Ira P. Rothken" <ira () techfirm com>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: Petition for Review to CA Supreme Court in Ferguson v. Friendfinders et al
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:41:51 -0800
Organization: Rothken Law Firm

Declan,

Enclosed as a pdf is our Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court in the "Bulk E-Mail" class action case known as Ferguson v. Friendfinder et al (incorrectly cited as Friendfinders). We are filing this brief today - February 5, 2002. We won in the trial Court when the Court declared that California's bulk e-mail statute was unconstitutional as it violated the Dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In plain english, the trial court found that California cannot legislate - on the State level - what must go in the single subject line and body of a commercial e-mail - if each state were to do that it would lead to conflicting laws and paralysis of such e-mail communication as a whole. The California Court of Appeal recently reversed the trial court decision. We are now appealing to the California Supreme Court. This case is not about my clients favoring spam - quite the opposite. My clients do not like spam and deny having sent spam in this case. This case is about having one rule - on the Federal level - that governs spam so those who want to abide by such a law have a chance to do so without having to navigate 50 different State rules (to the extent they do not conflict).

Thanks ;-)

Ira P. Rothken
Rothken Law Firm
<http://www.techfirm.com>www.techfirm.com
<mailto:ipr () techfirm com>ipr () techfirm com




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Current thread: