The IT Law Wiki
Explore
Main Page
All Pages
Community
Interactive Maps
Random page
TopContent
Most Visited Pages
Cell phone
RFID tag
Radio frequency spectrum
Cloud consumer
Internet
Newly Changed Pages
Computer terminal
Persuasive evidence
Website operator
Bfdi
Email bombing
Pornography
Message modification
Most Popular Pages
community
Community portal
forum
FANDOM
Fan Central
BETA
Games
Anime
Movies
TV
Video
Wikis
Explore Wikis
Community Central
Start a Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Sign In
Sign In
Register
The IT Law Wiki
34,539
pages
Explore
Main Page
All Pages
Community
Interactive Maps
Random page
TopContent
Most Visited Pages
Cell phone
RFID tag
Radio frequency spectrum
Cloud consumer
Internet
Newly Changed Pages
Computer terminal
Persuasive evidence
Website operator
Bfdi
Email bombing
Pornography
Message modification
Most Popular Pages
community
Community portal
forum
Editing
Ferguson v. Friendfinders
Back to page
Edit
Edit source
View history
Talk (0)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Citation == '''Ferguson v. Friendfinders, Inc.,''' 94 Cal.App.4th 1255, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 258 (2002) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16049607892064882250&q=94+Cal.App.4th+1255&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 full-text]). == Factual Background == A California resident sued two California businesses and an individual, alleging that defendants violated California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17538.4 by sending him [[unsolicited commercial e-mail]] ([[UCE]]) — also known as “[[spam]]” — that was deceptive and misleading. The lower court ruked that the statute “unconstitutionally subjects [[interstate]] use of the [[Internet]] to inconsistent regulations, therefore violating the [[dormant Commerce Clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]].”<ref>U.S. Const., art. I, §8, cl. 3.</ref> == Appellate Court Proceedings == The appellate court reversed, holding that the statute only regulated [[spam]] sent to California residents through an [[e-mail]] service with equipment within the state, by requiring that the sender identify itself, provide a way for recipients to get removed from the [[email]] list, and to include the message “ADV:” as the first four characters of the subject line. As a result, the court found that there was no violation of the [[dormant Commerce Clause]]. == Comments == This case follows an earlier ruling by the Washington state Supreme Court,<ref>[[State v. Heckel]], 143 Wash.2d 824, 24 P.3d 404 (2001) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10767402945675374454&q=24+P.3d+404&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 full-text]).</ref> which upheld a similar state law against the an identical claim. ==References== <references /> [[Category:Case]] [[Category:Case-U.S.-State]] [[Category:Spam]] [[Category:Commerce Clause]] [[Category:Internet]] [[Category:E-mail]] [[Category:2002]]
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to the The IT Law Wiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Follow on IG
TikTok
Join Fan Lab