In 2003, Congress enacted a restriction on telemarketing, known as the National Do-Not-Call list, which made it illegal after October 1, 2003, for telemarketers to place unsolicited commercial calls to consumers. A consumer may register up to three residential phone numbers for the list. The Act does not prohibit calls from political campaigns and others seeking support for political candidates, nor calls from certain charities seeking donations. The Act provides for significant financial penalties imposed by the Federal Communications Commission on any telemarketer or company that violates the law. Some telemarketer organizations claim that the law is unconstitutional.
Also in 2003, Congress enacted the CAN SPAM Act, prohibiting certain kinds of spam e-mail nationwide. The CAN SPAM Act also states that, "This act supersedes any statute, regulation or rule of a state that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to send commercial messages, except to the extent that the state rule prohibits deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto." In September, 2005, California enacted a new anti-SPAM law that applies to spam e-mail either sent from a server in California or sent to a California e-mail address.
1. What constitutional law issues do these statutes raise, and who should prevail? How, specifically, should the courts resolve these constitutional issues according to the current state of the law? What substantial government interest is Congress attempting to protect with the National DNC List? Where is that found in U.S. Constitution? What other strategies could the government employ to reach the same result?
Fun Products, Inc. is in the business of designing computer games. At the end of a particularly successful year, company management decided to throw a celebration party at which it would announce large bonuses for the entire workforce. The party was held in the banquet room of a local hotel, owned by the Milton Hotel chain, and was catered by the hotel, including an open bar for all guests. Employees were also invited to bring a spouse or significant other. A good time was had by all, but too much fun was had by a few, including Larry Lush, and his wife, Linda. Larry and Linda had attended other company functions at which alcohol was served, and had a reputation for drinking a bit too much.
The company offered a free taxi ride home to any employee who had a bit too much to drink, but Larry and Linda declined the free cab ride, and attempted to drive home in their own car. En route, Larry, who was driving, struck another vehicle, injuring Veronica, the driver of that car. Larry has limited assets, and his insurance had just expired, as well as his driver's license. Veronica wants to sue Fun Products, Inc. and the Milton Hotel chain for her injuries, which include medical bills, lost wages, property repair costs (her car), and pain and suffering. She also wants to obtain a court order prohibiting Fun Products, Inc. from ever serving alcohol at a company function again.
2. Without trying to decide who will win if Veronica sues Fun Products, Inc. and the Milton Hotel chain, analyze the following: Who are the parties to this lawsuit, and what are they called (trial level and appeal level)? What types of law will Veronica's lawsuit involve? What type of remedies is she seeking, and are these remedies (or some of them) appropriate to this type of case? What legal sources will the court consider in deciding if Fun Products, Inc. and the Milton Hotel chain (or either of them) are liable for Veronica's injuries? What types of liability does Larry face as a result of this scenario? What burden of proof will apply? What issues in this dispute would a jury decide (if the case went to trial), and what issues would a judge decide? What if the person(s) with liability here doesn't have the money to pay Veronica's damages?