Politech is the oldest Internet resource devoted to politics and
technology. Launched in 1994 by Declan
McCullagh, the mailing list has chronicled the growing
intersection of culture, technology, politics, and law. Since
2000, so has the Politech web site.
Alleged spammer claims California anti-spam law is unconstitutional
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 11:03:38 -0500
- To: politech@politechbot.com
- Subject: FC: Alleged spammer claims California anti-spam law is unconstitutional
- From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
- Cc: ira@techfirm.com
[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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to politechbot.com