Support the Site
The judge in this case has ruled for Quinstreet.
The determinations here were that Ferguson did qualify as an Interactive Service Provider for the purposes of CAN-SPAM, but did not suffer an "adverse effect" as contemplated by the statute. The Court also ruled that the Washington State anti-spam law is pre-empted by CAN-SPAM.
Here is Ferguson's Reply to Quinstreet's Response in opposition to his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Here is Quinstreet's response to Ferguson's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Here is Ferguson's motion for partial summary judgment.
Here is Quinstreet's reply to Ferguson's opposition to their Motion for Summary Judgment.
Here is Ferguson's response to Quinstreet's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Here is Quinstreet's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Having released everyone from the case except for Quinstreet, cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. Quinstreet filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Ferguson filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MARK FERGUSON, a married individual,
ACTIVE RESPONSE GROUP, a New York
Here's the Bradford Exchange's Answer to the lawsuit.
The affirmative defenses are interesting. Most of the affirmative defenses are prophylactic in nature (they're there just in case, because failure to assert a defense is a waiver of the defense). Here, in Texas, those don't carry much weight because, by and large, not only must you assert the defense, you must actually pursue the defense.
Subscribe to Spamsuite