U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 103— CONTROLLING THE ASSAULT OF NON-SOLICITED PORNOGRAPHY AND MARKETING

15 U.S.C. § 7707

Effect on other laws

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Federal law(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of title 47, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.(2) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect in any way the Commission’s authority to bring enforcement actions under FTC Act for materially false or deceptive representations or unfair practices in commercial electronic mail messages.(b) State law(1) In general

This chapter supersedes any statute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to send commercial messages, except to the extent that any such statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto.

(2) State law not specific to electronic mailThis chapter shall not be construed to preempt the applicability of—(A) State laws that are not specific to electronic mail, including State trespass, contract, or tort law; or(B) other State laws to the extent that those laws relate to acts of fraud or computer crime.(c) No effect on policies of providers of Internet access service

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to have any effect on the lawfulness or unlawfulness, under any other provision of law, of the adoption, implementation, or enforcement by a provider of Internet access service of a policy of declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or store certain types of electronic mail messages.

(Pub. L. 108–187, § 8, Dec. 16, 2003, 117 Stat. 2716.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 108–187, Dec. 16, 2003, 117 Stat. 2699, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7701 of this title and Tables.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 2004, see section 16 of Pub. L. 108–187, set out as a note under section 7701 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 12× “We review the district court's conclusion that this claim is preempted pursuant to the CAN-SPAM Act's express preemption clause, 15 U.S.C. § 7707 (b). B 1 As a preliminary matter, the Attorney General for the State of Washington ("State"), appearing here as amicus curiae,…”
Hypertouch, Inc. v. Valueclick, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 5× “” ( 15 U.S.C. § 7707 (b)(1).) ValueClick argued that the exemption for state statutes prohibiting “falsity or deception” was only intended to permit state law claims based on all of the elements of common law fraud, including knowledge of falsity, intent to deceive, reliance and…”
Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 232 P.3d 625 (Cal. 2010). “” ( 15 U.S.C. § 7707 (b)(1).) Regarding the scope of this provision, a congressional committee report stated that “a State law requiring some or all commercial e-mail to carry specific types of labels, or to follow a certain format or contain specified content, would be…”
White Buffalo Ventures, LLC v. Univ. of Texas, 420 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2005). “See 15 U.S.C. § 7707 (b). Although a court should begin with the expression provided by Congress, it must also “identify the domain expressly pre-empted.”
Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Keynetics, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 523 (D. Maryland 2006). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 7707 (b)(1). But CAN-SPAM itself prohibits, among other things, the transmission of false or misleading information or deceptive subject headings and requires senders of email to have valid return e-mail addresses.”
MARYCLE, LLC. v. First Choice Internet, Inc., 890 A.2d 818 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006). “” 15 U.S.C. § 7707 (b)(1). The circuit court determined that because the federal law specifically reserves to states the right to control fraudulent and deceptive emails, which the Maryland statute does, the analysis in this case should focus on MCEMA.”
Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 777 F.3d 712 (4th Cir. 2015). “15 U.S.C. § 7707 (b)(1). That provision saved those state laws that “prohibit falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto.”
Powers v. Pottery Barn, Inc., 177 Cal. App. 4th 1039 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “” ( 15 U.S.C. § 7707 (b)(1).) However, CAN-SPAM does not preempt state laws that “are not specific to electronic mail.”
Balsam v. Trancos, Inc., 203 Cal. App. 4th 1083 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “” ( 15 U.S.C. § 7707 (b)(1), italics added.) Trancos also points out each e-mail included the advertiser’s physical address.”
Asis Internet Servs. v. Vistaprint USA, Inc., 617 F. Supp. 2d 989 (N.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 3× “00 for each eligible, unsolicited commercial email, and attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 972 F. Supp. 2d 748 (D. Maryland 2013). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 7707 (b)(1). In addition, Congress stated that the preemption clause should not be construed to preempt the applicability of state laws that are not specific to email or “[sjtate laws to the extent that those laws relate to acts of fraud or computer crime.”
Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc., 469 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 7707 (b)(1). The principal Oklahoma provision under which Mumma-graphics seeks damages provides: It shall be unlawful for a person to initiate an electronic mail message that the sender knows, or has reason to know: 1.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— 15 U.S.C. § 7707(b)(1) — 1 case
Facebook, Inc. v. CONNECTU LLC, 489 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.