The California State Supreme Court, in what could become a landmark case, has been asked to hear a challenge to a portion of the state’s nearly four year-old anti-spam law dealing with the labeling of unsolicited commercial e-mails.
A decision whether the court will hear the case is expected within the next 60 days. But the decision will set a legal precedent in the state, and could end up being cited in challenges to similar provisions in other state laws.
The measure requires that unsolicited commercial e-mails sent to Californians to be labeled as advertisements, or, in the case of sex-oriented materials, to be labeled as adult.
The challenge was filed by two firms: Palo Alto-based Friendfinder Inc., and Conru Interactive, and their owner Andrew Conru.
Conru and his lawyer, Ira Perry Rothkin contend that the law has usurped the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The case began three years ago when Californian Mark Ferguson sued Conru and his companies for sending him unsolicited commercial e-mails without the required labeling. A year later, the labeling section of the law was held unconstitutional by the trial judge in the San Francisco Superior Court.
But late last year, a three-judge appeals court overturned that decision saying that the law did not interfere with interstate commerce, and that it applied “only when unsolicited e-mail is sent to a California resident by means of an electronic mail service provider who has equipment in the state.”
Rothkin argued in his petition that the appellate court “set up and knocked down straw-target rationales that are not involved in this case.” He also claimed that the law fails to “incorporate necessary geographical limitations, and that it regulates commerce taking place entirely outside California.”
Network
