New York state's consumer fraud and false advertising laws were enforceable against a state resident whose email sales "scam" was targeted outside the state by means of global electronic communication. Dismissing defendants' jurisdictional challenge, the court noted that the Internet nature of defendant's transactions did not affect jurisdictional analysis, since "the focus is primarily on the location of the messenger." In dicta, the court stated: "As can be readily envisioned, civil Internet litigation defendants often raise jurisdictional objections and respondents are no exception. Indeed, although Internet transactions might appear to pose novel jurisdictional issues, traditional jurisdictional standards have proved to be sufficient to resolve all civil Internet jurisdictional issues raised to date, refuting the view of 'some commentators...[who] believed a new body of jurisprudence is needed to address' questions of personnel [sic] jurisdiction and the Internet..." (citing to an Albany law Journal article). The court also cited the ALA v. Pataki decision of 6/20/97, summarized on this list under "Free Speech/First Amendment", holding that "The Internet ... must be marked off as a national preserve to protect users from inconsistent legislation that, taken to its most extreme, could paralyze development of the Internet altogether. ... Only Congress can legislate in this area." The court held that the Constitution's Commerce Clause was not offended by New York's decision to prosecute the defendant on behalf of nonresident complainants.
Keywords: consumer affairs, advertising, spam
| 