Ferguson v. Friendfinders, Inc., 94 Cal App.4th 1255 (2002)
Procedural history:
The trial court ruled that the California statute regulating unsolicited e-mail violates the Federal Dormant Commerce Clause.
Issue
California has a statute referred to as section 17538.4 of the Business and Professional Code, which regulates unsolicited e-mail by requiring:
1. Sender establish a toll free number or return e-mail address to stop further e-mails
2. Include in the first text of the document informing recipient how to stop further e-mail
3. Stop sending if requested to stop
4. Include “ADV†in the subject line of each message
Analysis
The appeals court reviewed the requirements of the Dormant Commerce Clause that limit the authority of the states to enact legislation affecting interstate commerce even in some areas absent congressional action.
After a discussion of previous related decisions, the court concluded that section 17538.4 does not discriminate against or directly regulate or control interstate commerce. Therefore that section does not violate the Commerce Clause if it serves a legitimate local public interest and if the burden it imposes on interstate commerce is not excessive when viewed in light of its local benefits.
The court balanced the state interest of protecting citizens from the proliferation of unsolicited e-mail which section 17538.4 furthers against the burden on interstate commerce and concluded that the burdens imposed on interstate commerce are minimal and do not outweigh the statute’s benefits.
Holding
Respondents failed to carry the burden of proving section 17538.4 violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Judgment is reversed and remanded.
Procedural history:
The trial court ruled that the California statute regulating unsolicited e-mail violates the Federal Dormant Commerce Clause.
Issue
California has a statute referred to as section 17538.4 of the Business and Professional Code, which regulates unsolicited e-mail by requiring:
1. Sender establish a toll free number or return e-mail address to stop further e-mails
2. Include in the first text of the document informing recipient how to stop further e-mail
3. Stop sending if requested to stop
4. Include “ADV†in the subject line of each message
Analysis
The appeals court reviewed the requirements of the Dormant Commerce Clause that limit the authority of the states to enact legislation affecting interstate commerce even in some areas absent congressional action.
After a discussion of previous related decisions, the court concluded that section 17538.4 does not discriminate against or directly regulate or control interstate commerce. Therefore that section does not violate the Commerce Clause if it serves a legitimate local public interest and if the burden it imposes on interstate commerce is not excessive when viewed in light of its local benefits.
The court balanced the state interest of protecting citizens from the proliferation of unsolicited e-mail which section 17538.4 furthers against the burden on interstate commerce and concluded that the burdens imposed on interstate commerce are minimal and do not outweigh the statute’s benefits.
Holding
Respondents failed to carry the burden of proving section 17538.4 violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Judgment is reversed and remanded.