United States Court of Appeals,Eighth Circuit.State of MISSOURI, ex rel. Jeremiah W. (Jay)NIXON, Attorney General, Plaintiff-Appellant,United States of America, Intervenor/ Plaintiff-Appellant,v.AMERICAN BLAST FAX, INC., a Texas corpora-tion not authorized to transact business in Missourias a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee,Fax.com, Inc. Movant-Appellee.State of California; State of Alaska; State of Arkan-sas; State of Connecticut; State of Colorado; Dis-trict of Columbia; State of Florida; State of Idaho;State of Illinois; State of Iowa; State of Kentucky;State of Maryland; State of Michigan; State of Min-nesota; State of New Mexico; State of Oregon,State of South Dakota; State of Texas; State of Ver-mont; State of West Virginia, Amici Curiae on be-half of Appellants,American Business Media; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.;ACS Systems, Incorporated; Micro General Cor-poration, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellees.
Nos. 02-2705, 02-2707.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2003.Filed: March 21, 2003.Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 3,2003.FN*FN*JudgeTheodore McMillianand Judge
Morris S. Arnolddid not participate in theconsideration or decision of this matter.Motion to Stay Mandate Denied July 22, 2003.State of Missouri brought action against business,alleging that business violated provision of theTelephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) bysending unsolicited advertising via facsimile trans-missions, and seeking injunctive relief and civilpenalties. The federal government intervened. TheUnited States District Court for the Eastern Districtof Missouri,Stephen Nathaniel Limbaugh, Senior
District Judge,196 F.Supp.2d 920,dismissed. State
and federal government appealed. The Court of Ap-peals,Murphy, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) govern-ment demonstrated a substantial interest in prevent-ing advertising cost shifting and interference withfax machines that such unwanted advertising placeson the recipients; (2) TCPA provision was reason-ably related to substantial governmental interest;and (3) provision was not more restrictive or ex-tensive than necessary to accomplish substantialgovernmental interest.Reversed and remanded.West Headnotes
Constitutional Law 92 1539
Constitutional Law 92 1540
92Constitutional Law92XVIIIFreedom of Speech, Expression, andPress92XVIII(A)In General
92XVIII(A)2Commercial Speech in Gen-eral92k1540k.UnlawfulSpeech or Activ-
ities.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k90.2)If commercial speech concerns unlawful activity oris misleading, then the speech is not protected bythe First Amendment.U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.Page 1323 F.3d 649, 28 Communications Reg. (P&F) 1119
(Cite as: 323 F.3d 649)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.