An appellate court judge reinstated yesterday Marylanders' rights to fight back against some spammers who clog e-mail inboxes with unsolicited commercial messages.
Maryland Court of Special Appeals Judge Sally D. Adkins reversed a decision by a Montgomery County judge who had declared Maryland's anti-spam law unconstitutional. The reversal clears the way for residents to sue those who send deceptive marketing e-mail even if the spammers live across state lines.
It is one among a growing body of appellate opinions interpreting how laws should govern activity on the Internet, whose borderless nature has required a new approach to legal enforcement.
FOR THE RECORD - A story on Friday's front page about a Maryland Court of Special Appeals decision overturning a lower court's ruling that said the state's anti-spam law was unconstitutional did not make clear that the appeal was heard by a three-judge panel. Judge Sally D. Adkins wrote the opinion reversing the lower court ruling, and Judges Mary Ellen Barbera and James P. Salmon agreed.
The Sun regrets the errors.
Rulings that declared spam laws in California and Washington unconstitutional also were reversed on appeal, and those decisions have been frequently cited as precedent-setting by attorneys across the nation.
The ruling "is precedent-setting in Maryland, so trial courts in Maryland will have to abide by the decision," said Timothy J. Walton, a California attorney who argued one of the country's first cases regulating commercial e-mail.
"Outside of Maryland, trial courts and other appellate courts will look at this as what's considered persuasive authority rather than binding authority," meaning it will hold some weight but not require certain actions, he said.
In the 59-page opinion, Adkins ruled that Maryland courts have jurisdiction over out-of-state spammers who send certain false or misleading electronic messages to Maryland residents.
She also determined that such jurisdiction does not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which limits state and local government authority over interstate proceedings, as the Montgomery County Circuit Court judge had asserted in late 2004.
"We just think this is a great opinion that's right on and that has statewide, countrywide and even worldwide implications," said Michael S. Rothman, a Rockville lawyer who argued for the winning side of the appeal.
"We are here to do no less than rescue the medium of e-mail."
The case was sent back to the lower court to determine whether Joseph M. Frevola, the former e-mail marketer and president of First Choice Internet Inc. of New York, violated the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act.
That's the contention of plaintiffs Neit Solutions, an Internet service provider based in Frederick, and recent law school graduate Eric Menhart, who sued Frevola under the Maryland law for $168,750 in damages after receiving 83 supposed spams.
