United States Ninth Circuit

In an action against an online marketer for sending unsolicited e-mail (i.e. spam), summary judgment for defendants-spammers is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff was not an "Internet access service" provider within the meaning of the CAN-SPAM Act; and 2) plaintiff was not "adversely affected by" spam e-mail solely by virtue of receiving a large amount of commercial e-mail.

Appellate Information

• Argued 12/09/2008
• Decided 08/06/2009
• Published 08/06/2009

Judges

• Before RONALD M. GOULD, RICHARD C. TALLMAN, and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Timothy J. Walton, Walton & Rose, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for plaintiff-appellant James S. Gordon, Jr., Shannon E. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General of Washington, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae State of Washington., Jason K. Singleton, Richard E. Grabowski, Singleton Law Group, Eureka, CA, for Amicus Curiae ASIS Internet Services, Joel Householter, and Ritchie Phillips.


• For Appellees:
  
• Derek Newman (argued), Randall Moeller, Newman & Newman, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Seattle, WA, and Michael R. Geroe, General Counsel, Adknowledge, Inc., Santa Monica, CA, for defendants-appellees, Virtumundo, Inc., Adknowledge, Inc., and Scott Lynn.