Articles

• David E. Sorkin, Spam Legislation in the United States, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 3 (2003).
• David E. Sorkin, Technical and Legal Approaches to Unsolicited Electronic Mail, 35 U.S.F. L. Rev. 325 (2001).
• David E. Sorkin, Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 45 Buffalo L. Rev. 1001 (1997).
• David E. Sorkin, Revocation of an Internet Domain Name for Violations of “Netiquette”: Contractual and Constitutional Implications, 15 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 587 (1997).
• Justin Leung, Privacy Breach Leaves Identities of Student Loan Recipients Exposed (2013).
• Dominique-Chantale Alepin, Note, “Opting-Out”: A Technical, Legal and Practical Look at  he CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 28 Colum. J.L. & Arts 41 (2004).
• Elizabeth A. Alongi, Note, Has the U.S. Canned Spam?, 46 Ariz. L. Rev. 263 (2004).
• Kenneth C. Amaditz, Canning “Spam” in Virginia: Model Legislation to Control Junk E-mail, 4 Va. J.L. & Tech. 4 (1999).
• Michelle Armond, Cyberlaw: State Internet Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 379 (2002).
• Stephanie Austria, Note, Forgery in Cyberspace: The Spoof Could be on You!, 5 Pitt. J. Tech. L. & Pol’y 2 (2004).
• Ian Ayres & Matthew Funk, Marketing Privacy, 20 Yale J. on Reg. 77 (2003).
• Susan M. Ballantine, Note, Computer Network Trespasses: Solving New Problems with Old Solutions, 57 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 209 (2000).
• Richard C. Balough, The Do-Not-Call Registry Model Is Not the Answer to Spam, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 79 (2003).
• David T. Bartels, Note, Canning Spam: California Bans Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 30 McGeorge L. Rev. 420 (1999).
• W. Parker Baxter, Recent Development, Has Spam Been Canned? Consumers, Marketers, and the Making of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 8 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 163 (2004).
• J. Brian Beckham, Casenote, Intel v. Hamidi: Spam as a Trespass to Chattels — Deconstruction of a Private Right of Action in California, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 205 (2003).
• Yochai Benkler, Net Regulation: Taking Stock and Looking Forward, 71 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1203 (2000).
• Steven E. Bennett, Note, Canning Spam: CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 32 U. Rich. L. Rev. 545 (1998).
• Arminda B. Bepko, Note, A State-by-State Comparison of Spam Laws, 13 Media L. & Pol’y 20 (2004).
• Jordan M. Blanke, Canned Spam: New State and Federal Legislation Attempts to Put a Lid on It, 7 Comp. L. Rev. & Tech. J. 305 (2004).
• John E. Brockhoeft, Evaluating The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 4 Loy. Law & Tech. Ann. 1 (2004).
• Dan L. Burk, The Trouble with Trespass, 4 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 27 (2000).
• Michael W. Carroll, Garbage In: Emerging Media and Regulation of Unsolicited Commercial Solicitations, 11 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 233 (1996).
• Dannielle Cisneros, Issue Brief, Do Not Advertise: The Current Fight Against Unsolicited Advertisements, 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 10.
• Shelley Cobos, Note, A Two-Tiered Registry System to Regulate Spam, 2003 UCLA J. L. Tech. 5.
• Evan Cramer, Issue Brief, The Future of Wireless Spam, 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 21.
• Ben Dahl, A Further Darkside to Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail? An Assessment of Potential Employer Liability for Spam E-Mail, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 179 (2003).
• Joseph D’Ambrosio, Should “Junk” E-Mail Be Legally Protected?, 17 Computer & High Tech. L.J. 231 (2001).
• Patty M. DeGaetano, Note, Intel Corp. v. Hamidi: Private Property, Keep Out — The Unworkable Definition of Injury for a Trespass to Chattels Claim in Cyberspace, 40 Cal. W. L. Rev. 355 (2004).
• David Dickinson, Note, An Architecture for Spam Regulation, 57 Fed. Comm. L.J. 129 (2004).
• Michael B. Edwards, Recent Development, A Call to Arms: Marching Orders for the North Carolina Anti-Spam Statute, 4 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 93 (2002).
• Christopher D. Fasano, Comment, Getting Rid of Spam: Addressing Spam in Courts and in Congress, 2000 Syracuse L. & Tech. J. 3.  [66K PDF]
• George H. Fibbe, Screen-Scraping and Harmful Cybertrespass after Intel, 55 Mercer L. Rev. 1011 (2004).
• Michael A. Fisher, Note, The Right to Spam? Regulating Electronic Junk Mail, 23 Colum.-VLA J.L. & Arts 363 (2000).
• Credence E. Fogo, The Postman Always Rings 4,000 Times: New Approaches to Curb Spam, 18 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 915 (2000).
• R. Jonas Geissler, Whether “Anti-Spam” Laws Violate the First Amendment, 2001 J. Online L. art. 8.
• Brian G. Gilpin, Attorney Advertising & Solicitation on the Internet: Complying with Ethics Regulations and Netiquette, 13 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 697 (1995).
• Eric Goldman, Where’s the Beef? Dissecting Spam’s Purported Harms, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 13 (2003).
• Jack L. Goldsmith & Alan O. Sykes, The Internet and the Dormant Commerce Clause, 110 Yale L.J. 785 (2001).
• David A. Gottardo, Comment, Commercialism and the Downfall of Internet Self Governance: An Application of Antitrust Law, 16 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 125 (1997).
• Scot M. Graydon, Much Ado About Spam: Unsolicited Advertising, the Internet, and You, 32 St. Mary’s L.J. 77 (2000).
• Seth Grossman, Note, Keeping Unwanted Donkeys and Elephants Out of Your Inbox: The Case for Regulating Political Spam, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1533 (2004).
• Anne E. Hawley, Comment, Taking Spam Out of Your Cyberspace Diet: Common Law Applied to Bulk Unsolicited Advertising via Electronic Mail, 66 UMKC L. Rev. 381 (1997).
• William E. Hornsby, Jr., Spamming for Legal Services: A Constitutional Right within a Regulatory Quagmire, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 97 (2003).
• Diane E. Horvath & John S. Jung, 1999 Technology Legislation in Virginia, 33 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1037 (1999).
• Christopher Hurld, Current Development, Untangling the Wicked Web: The Marketing of Legal Services on the Internet and the Model Rules, 17 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 827 (2004).
• David R. Johnson, Susan P. Crawford & John G. Palfrey, Jr., The Accountable Internet: Peer Production of Internet Governance, 9 Va. J.L. & Tech. 9 (2004).
• Carol Jones, News, E-Mail Solicitation: Will Opening a “Spam-Free” Mailbox Ever Be a Reality?, 15 Loyola Consumer L. Rev. 69 (2002).
• Steven Kam, Note, Intel Corp. v. Hamidi: Trespass to Chattels and a Doctrine of Cyber-Nuisance, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 427 (2004).
• Jennifer M. Kappel, Comment, Government Intervention on the Internet: Should the Federal Trade Commission Regulate Unsolicited E-Mail Advertising?, 51 Admin. L. Rev. 1011 (1999).
• Sabra-Anne Kelin, Note, State Regulation of Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 16 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 435 (2001).
• Jeremiah Kelman, Note, E-Nuisance: Unsolicited Bulk E-Mail at the Boundaries of Common Law Property Rights, 78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 363 (2004).
• Joseph P. Kendrick, Recent Development, “Subject: ADV:” Anti-Spam Laws Force Emerging Internet Business Advertisers to Wear the Scarlet “S,” 7 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 563 (2003).
• Dennis W.K. Khong, An Economic Analysis of Spam Law, 1 Erasmus L. & Econ. Rev. 23 (2004).
• Shari A. Kolnicki, The Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Its Burden on Small Business: An Evaluation of the Law and Its Ramifications on Telecommunication Advances, 28 Cap. U. L. Rev. 223 (1999).
• Jeffrey L. Kosiba, Comment, Legal Relief from Spam-Induced Internet Indigestion, 25 Dayton L. Rev. 187 (1999).
• Ari Lanin, Note, Who Controls the Internet? States’ Rights and the Reawakening of the Dormant Commerce Clause, 73 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1423 (2000).
• Dianne Plunkett Latham, Electronic Commerce in the 21st Century: Spam Remedies, 27 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1649 (2001).
• Cathryn Le, Note, How Have Internet Service Providers Beat Spammers?, 5 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 9 (1998).
• Thomas K. Ledbetter, Comment, Stopping Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail: Why the CAN-SPAM Act Is Not the Solution to Stop Spam, 34 Sw. U. L. Rev. 107 (2004).
• Richard C. Lee, Note, Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc., 13 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 417 (1998).
• Mark A. Lemley, The Law and Economics of Internet Norms, 73 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 1257 (1998).
• Lawrence Lessig, The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 501 (1999).
• Lawrence Lessig & Paul Resnick, Zoning Speech on the Internet: A Legal and Technical Model, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 395 (1999).
• John Magee, The Law Regulating Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail: An International Perspective, 19 Computer & High Tech. L.J. 333 (2003).
• Christopher Scott Maravilla, The Feasibility of a Law to Regulate Pornographic, Unsolicited, Commercial E-Mail, 4 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 117 (2002).
• Joshua A. Marcus, Note, Commercial Speech on the Internet: Spam and the First Amendment, 16 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 245 (1998).
• Erin Elizabeth Marks, Comment, Spammers Clog In-boxes Everywhere: Will the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 Halt the Invasion?, 54 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 943 (2004).
• Elizabeth Phillips Marsh, Purveyors of Hate on the Internet: Are We Ready for Hate Spam?, 17 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 379 (2000)
• Daniel L. Mayer, Note, Attacking A Windmill: Why the CAN SPAM Act Is a Futile Waste of Time and Money, 31 J. Legis. 177 (2004).
• Michael D. McConathy, Comment, Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. F.C.C. and Moser v. F.C.C.: How Much Should the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Restrict Your Phone, Fax and Computer, 26 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 153 (1996).
• R. Clifton Merrell, Note, Trespass to Chattels in the Age of the Internet, 80 Wash. U. L.Q. 675 (2002).
• Karin Mika, Information v. Commercialization: The Internet and Unsolicited Electronic Mail, 4 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 6 (1998).
• Gary Miller, How to Can Spam: Legislating Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 2 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 127 (2000).  [129K PDF]
• Steven Miller, Comment, Washington’s “Spam Killing” Statute: Does It Slaughter Privacy in the Process?, 74 Wash. L. Rev. 453 (1999).
• Anne P. Mitchell, Vendor Liability for Advertising in Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 137 (2003).
• Sameh I. Mobarek, Note, The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003: Was Congress Actually Trying to Solve the Problem or Add to it?, 16 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 247 (2004).
• Gary S. Moorefield, Note, SPAM — It’s Not Just for Breakfast Anymore: Federal Legislation and the Fight to Free the Internet From Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 5 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 10 (1999).  [161K PDF]
• Adam Mossoff, Spam — Oy, What a Nuisance!, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 625 (2004).
• Paul K. Ohm, Comment, On Regulating the Internet: Usenet, A Case Study, 46 UCLA L. Rev. 1941 (1999).
• Max Ochoa, Note, Recent State Laws Regulating Unsolicited Electronic Mail, 16 Computer & High Tech. L.J. 459 (2000).
• Bridget M. O’Neill, Comment, Wireless Spam This Way Comes: An Analysis of the Spread of Wireless Spam and the Present and Proposed Measures Taken To Stop It, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 229 (2003).
• Don Passenger & Jeff Kirkey, Un-Canned Spam: Getting It Back in the Tin, 82:3 Mich. B.J. 36 (Mar. 2003).
• David G. Post, Internet: Of Black Holes and Decentralized Law-Making in Cyberspace, 2 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 70 (2000).
• Ethan Preston, Finding Fences in Cyberspace: Privacy and Open Access on the Internet, 6.1 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y 3 (2001).
• Matthew B. Prince & Patrick A. Shea, After CAN-SPAM, How States Can Stay Relevant in the Fight Against Unwanted Messages: How a Children’s Protection Registry Can Be Effective, and Is Not Preempted, under the New Federal Anti-Spam Law, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 29 (2003).
• Matthew T. Rollins, Examination of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct Pertaining to the Marketing of Legal Services in Cyberspace, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 113 (2003).
• Laura Quilter, The Continuing Expansion of Cyberspace Trespass to Chattels, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 421 (2002).
• Monique Redford, Comment, The Indecency of Unsolicited Sexually Explicit Email: A Comment on the Protection of Free Speech v. The Protection of Children, 26 Seattle U. L. Rev. 125 (2002).
• Cindy M. Rice, Comment, The TCPA: A Justification for the Prohibition of Spam in 2002?, 3 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 375 (2002).
• Ashley L. Rogers, Note, Is There Judicial Recourse to Attack Spammers?, 6 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 338 (2004).
• John D. Saba, Jr., Comment, Internet Property Rights: E-Trespass, 33 St. Mary’s L.J. 367 (2002).
• John D. Saba Jr., 2003 Legislative Update, Anti-Spam Legislation: Eproclamation: No More Spam in Texas, 66 Tex. B. J. 660 (2003).
• Jan H. Samoriski, Unsolicited Commercial E-mail, the Internet and the First Amendment: Another Free Speech Showdown in Cyberspace?, 43 J. Broadcasting & Electronic Media (2000).
• Douglas K. Schnell, Note, Don’t Just Hit Send: Unsolicited E-mail and the Attorney-Client Relationship, 17 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 533 (2003).
• Charles D. Siegal, Rule Formation in Non-Hierarchical Systems, 16 Temp. Envtl. L. & Tech. J. 173 (1998).
• Derek D. Simmons, Comment, No Seconds on Spam: A Legislative Prescription to Harness Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 3 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 389 (1999).
• Marc Simon, Note, The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003: Is Congressional Regulation of Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail Constitutional?, 4 J. High Tech. L. 85 (2004).
• Eric J. Sinrod & Barak D. Jolish, Controlling Chaos: The Emerging Law of Privacy and Speech in Cyberspace, 1999 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 1.
• Eric J. Sinrod, Jeffrey W. Reyna & Barak D. Jolish, The New Wave of Speech and Privacy Developments in Cyberspace, 21 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 583 (1999).
• Reagan Smith, Note, Eliminating the Spam from Your Internet Diet: The Possible Effects of the Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001 on Junk E-Mail, 35 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 411 (2004).
• Jeff Sovern, Protecting Privacy with Deceptive Trade Practices Legislation, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 1305 (2001).
• Robert Louis B. Stevenson, Issue Brief, Plugging the “Phishing” Hole: Legislation versus Technology, 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 6.
• Jeffrey D. Sullivan & Michael B. de Leeuw, Spam after CAN-SPAM: How Inconsistent Thinking Has Made a Hash out of Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail Policy, 20 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 887 (2004).
• Mark Sweet, Issue Brief, Political E-Mail: Protected Speech or Unwelcome Spam?, 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 1.
• Mozelle W. Thompson, The Challenges of Law in Cyberspace — Fostering the Growth and Safety of E-Commerce, 6 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 1 (2000).
• Heather L. Thuet, Recent Legislative Development, Internet Law: Unsolicited Commercial and Sexually Explicit Email Act: A Ban on “Spam,” 2003 Utah L. Rev. 815.
• Vasilios Toliopoulos, Legislative Update, Regulating Your Internet Diet: The Can Spam Act of 1999, 10 DePaul-LCA J. Art & Ent. L. 175 (1999)
• Nancy Toross, Comment, Double-Click on This: Keeping Pace with On-Line Market Manipulation, 32 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1399 (1999).
• Jacquelyn Trussell, News, Is the CAN-SPAM Act the Answer to the Growing Problem of Spam?, 16 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 175 (2004).
• Jo Vandermause, Comment, You’ve Got Indecent E-Mail!, 1999 Wis. L. Rev. 1259.
• Richard Warner, Spam and Beyond: Freedom, Efficiency, and the Regulation of E-Mail Advertising, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 141 (2003).
• Calvin Whang, Comment, An Analysis of California’s Common and Statutory Law Dealing with Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail: An Argument for Revision, 37 San Diego L. Rev. 1201 (2000).
• Mitchel L. Winick, Debra Thomas Graves & Christy Crase, Attorney Advertising on the Internet: From Arizona to Texas — Regulating Speech on the Cyber-Frontier, 27 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 1487 (1996).
• Timothy Wu, Application-Centered Internet Analysis, 85 Va. L. Rev. 1163 (1999).
• Grant C. Yang, Issue Brief, Canning Spam: Consumer Protection or a Lid on Free Speech?, 2004 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 16.
• Adam Zitter, Note, Good Laws for Junk Fax? Government Regulation of Unsolicited Solicitations, 72 Fordham L. Rev. 2767 (2004).
• Development, The Long Arm of Cyber-reach, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1610 (1999).
• Development, Communities Virtual and Real: Social and Political Dynamics of Law in Cyberspace, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1586 (1999).
• Note, The Impermeable Life: Unsolicited Communications in the Marketplace of Ideas, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 1314 (2005).
• Recent Case, Constitutional Law — Dormant Commerce Clause — Washington Supreme Court Upholds State Anti-Spamming Law — Washington v. Heckel, 24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001), 115 Harv. L. Rev. 931 (2002).
• Recent Development, Trespass to Chattels and the Internet: Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 17 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 283 (2003).
• Recent Developments, Technology and Related Law, 4 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 411 (2000).

Note:  Articles for which hyperlinks do not appear above are generally available on Lexis, Westlaw, or SSRN. Student-written articles are typically designated by “Note,” “Recent Development,” or a similar term.