FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3125093208> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3125093208 startingPage "355" @default.
• W3125093208 abstract "BY April of this year, 30 states had enacted statutes combat the growing number of unsolicited commercial e-mails (UCE), better known by the term spam. A list of the statutes appears in the box on page 361. Unfortunately, insofar as UCE statutes provide a cause of action for individuals, they do not deter those who send the most bothersome barrage of (usually sexually explicit) unwanted e-mail because the majority of those senders are virtually impossible locate or are judgment proof, or both. Individual plaintiffs, as opposed attorneys general or Internet service providers simply do not have the resources combat the real problem. (1) Thus, these statutes are seldom effective. (2) Because the worst offenders generally are unreachable, UCE statutes are used primarily against reputable companies-Internet service providers and telecom companies--that, typically unknowingly, violate them. One disturbing trend is for plaintiffs' attorneys send a settlement letter along with a complaint when a company with sufficiently deep pockets arguably violates the statute, knowing that most companies would rather settle for a few thousand dollars than incur the costs of answering. (3) How defend against this? HOW TO CHALLENGE The most (cost) effective defense against this practice, aside from amending the UCE statute make it less useful this type of plaintiffs' attorney or pushing through federal that pre-empts the statute, (4) is persuade a court strike down the statute on constitutional grounds. Because UCE statutes seek regulate commercial e-mails, one obvious avenue of attack is the commerce of the U.S. Constitution. (5) This specific constitutional challenge makes, or at least ought make, sense. The dormant commerce clause is the name given what courts take be the implication of the commerce clause. (6) This implication is that states lack the power regulate interstate commerce because Congress possesses it. The doctrine, however, rests on a fiction--the dormant commerce clause cannot simply forbid states regulate whatever the federal government could regulate under the commerce clause because Congress's power (since the New Deal anyway) is so expansive that this would leave states effectively powerless. An independent test, not simply a negative implication, is necessary determine when states have overstepped commerce clause boundaries. Consistent with this, the U.S. Supreme Court has articulated a variety of tests in an attempt describe the difference between those regulations that the Commerce Clause permits and those regulations that it prohibits. (7) These tests include: (1) whether a statute explicitly favors in-state over out-of-state economic interests test); (8) (2) whether a statute's practical is to control conduct beyond the boundaries of the state test); (9) (3) whether a sufficiently negative effect would arise if not one, but many or every, adopted similar[, but inconsistent,] legislation (the inconsistent regulation test); (10) and (4) whether the benefit the receives from the statute is clearly outweighed by the burden that it imposes on interstate commerce undue burden test). (11) Because UCE statutes do not typically or expressly discriminate openly against out-of-state interests, the protectionist test is not practical. Moreover, because in the UCE setting states are not market participants, one must ignore that aspect of the dormant commerce clause doctrine. (12) Thus, UCE statutes will be examined under only the last three tests. STATING THE TESTS The notion that UCE statutes violate the dormant commerce clause is straightforward and convincing. A. Extraterritorial Effects Test First, these statutes fail the extraterritorial effects test because they regulate activities that occur wholly outside the that has enacted such a statute. …" @default.
• W3125093208 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3125093208 creator A5025391975 @default.
• W3125093208 creator A5059319698 @default.
• W3125093208 date "2003-07-01" @default.
• W3125093208 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W3125093208 title "A Case for National E-Mail Regulation: State UCE Statutes Have Infirmities: No Matter How You Test State UCE Statutes, They Are Ineffective to Stop Spam and Many Are Invalid under the Dormant Commerce Clause" @default.
• W3125093208 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W3125093208 type Work @default.
• W3125093208 sameAs 3125093208 @default.
• W3125093208 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3125093208 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3125093208 hasAuthorship W3125093208A5025391975 @default.
• W3125093208 hasAuthorship W3125093208A5059319698 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConcept C114104786 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConcept C145097563 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConcept C2777063073 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConceptScore W3125093208C10138342 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConceptScore W3125093208C114104786 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConceptScore W3125093208C144133560 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConceptScore W3125093208C145097563 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConceptScore W3125093208C17319257 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConceptScore W3125093208C17744445 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConceptScore W3125093208C199539241 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConceptScore W3125093208C2777063073 @default.
• W3125093208 hasConceptScore W3125093208C97460637 @default.
• W3125093208 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W3125093208 hasLocation W31250932081 @default.
• W3125093208 hasOpenAccess W3125093208 @default.
• W3125093208 hasPrimaryLocation W31250932081 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W1564762915 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W1585380583 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W208357428 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W229237393 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W243191436 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W253925101 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W2738039111 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W309645368 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W3104249309 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W3121802221 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W3122305034 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W3123558017 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W3123629173 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W3124558955 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W3137167185 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W3138311255 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W571364231 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W2603508500 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W2898213235 @default.
• W3125093208 hasRelatedWork W49383846 @default.
• W3125093208 hasVolume "70" @default.
• W3125093208 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3125093208 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3125093208 magId "3125093208" @default.
• W3125093208 workType "article" @default.