Illinois and Colorado Adopt Two Different Approaches to Internet Click-Through Nexus Laws

We have written extensively about Internet click-through nexus laws. Indeed, Brann & Isaacson prevailed, on behalf of the Performance Marketing Association, in the challenge to the Illinois Internet click-through nexus law. On October 18, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the Illinois statute violated the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (“ITFA”), which is found at 47 U.S.C. §151 note, because the Illinois statute discriminated against electronic commerce. The lower court, the Circuit Court of Cook County, had held that the Illinois statute also violated the Commerce Clause because it mandated that any retailer that had an affiliate relationship with an Illinois company (i.e. the Illinois company referred potential customers to the retailer for a commission or other consideration) was required to collect and remit the Illinois sales and use tax. Because of its ruling under the ITFA, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to address the Commerce Clause issue.

In February 2014, the DMA, also represented by Brann & Isaacson, obtained a preliminary injunction from the District Court of Colorado, enjoining the enforcement of the Colorado reporting nexus law. The Colorado law required those companies that do not have a physical presence in Colorado to file reports with the Colorado Department of Revenue, make certain disclosures on their websites and catalogs and notify their customers through mailings describing the customers' obligation to remit sales taxes to the Colorado Department of Revenue. We reported on this decision in our February 20, 2014 blog post.

Subsequent to both the Illinois and Colorado victories for the industry, the legislatures in both of these states amended their statutes to address click-through nexus arrangements. Their approaches are different, though:

State Court Suspends Colorado Notice and Reporting Law

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014, Judge Morris Hoffman of the Colorado District Court for the City and County of Denver granted the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the Direct Marketing Association (“DMA”) in its suit challenging the 2010 Colorado statute that imposes onerous notice and reporting obligations upon out-of-state retailers that do not collect Colorado sales tax. The Court suspended, effective immediately, all of the Colorado law’s requirements (referred to in the ligation as the “Transactional Notice,” the “Annual Purchase Summary,” and the “Customer Information Report”). Judge Hoffman explained that “Plaintiff has proved to my satisfaction at this stage that each of the Act’s three notification and reporting requirements are facially discriminatory” in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. As a result, remote sellers that do not collect Colorado sales tax are not required to comply with the law’s provisions, pending further action by the Court as the case proceeds.

Readers will recall that the DMA previously obtained both a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Colorado law’s enforcement from the federal District Court for the District of Colorado. The injunction was dissolved in late 2013 after the federal Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”) deprived the federal District Court of jurisdiction to enter the injunction. In response, the DMA filed an action in state court in November 2013, challenging the law.

The DMA is represented in the case by Brann & Isaacson partners George Isaacson and Matthew Schaefer.

The state court will hold a status conference in the next few weeks to determine further proceedings in the case. We will keep readers apprised of further developments in the case.

State Sales Tax Enforcement After the Supreme Court’s Denial of Cert in Amazon/Overstock

As we have discussed in prior posts, Amazon and Overstock.com filed petitions for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the New York Court of Appeals decision that the New York affiliate click-through nexus statute, on its face, did not violate the Commerce Clause. Late last year, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petitions and, therefore, the New York Court of Appeals’ decision stands.

While the denial of cert means that the New York statute is constitutional on its face, it is not an indication that the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the New York Court of Appeals’ decision or that the Court has blessed affiliate click-through nexus laws. It simply signifies that the issues presented in that case did not warrant review. Less than 5% of all petitions for certiorari are granted.

States, however, have taken the denial of cert as a prompt to propose affiliate click-through nexus laws. Thus, representatives have introduced bills in the legislatures of four states—Hawaii, Indiana, Tennessee, and South Carolina—that are modeled after the New York statute. There are some variations among this proposed legislation, but in general each provides for a presumption of nexus if the remote seller pays commissions to a person (the affiliate) who resides in the state for referrals by a website link or otherwise, if the retailer’s sales in the state from such referrals exceed $10,000. The bills would also permit the retailer to overcome the presumption by showing that the affiliate does not otherwise solicit sales on behalf of the retailer or otherwise make a market in the state. The New York Court of Appeals in the Amazon/Overstock cases stated that the presumption was rebuttable, so that the retailer could prove that the affiliate did not engage in solicitation activities on behalf of the retailer in New York. The rebuttable presumption saved the constitutionality of the statute.

Direct Marketing Association Re-files Challenge to Colorado Notice and Reporting Law in State Court

We have been updating readers on developments regarding the court challenge brought by the Direct Marketing Association (“DMA”) to a 2010 Colorado law that purported to require Internet retailers and other remote sellers that do not collect Colorado sales tax to: (1) give certain notices to their Colorado customers regarding the purchaser’s obligation to self-report Colorado use tax; and (2) file reports with the Colorado Department of Revenue detailing the private purchasing information of their Colorado customers. The DMA won a preliminary injunction in January 2011 in federal District Court suspending the law on the grounds that it violated the Commerce Clause. The Court later made the injunction permanent when it awarded the DMA summary judgment in March 2012. The State appealed.

In August 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled on its own initiative that the Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”) barred federal court jurisdiction over the DMA’s claims. The Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of the DMA’s Commerce Clause claims, but rather ordered that the claims be dismissed on procedural grounds. The Court held that the DMA was required under the TIA to bring its claims in Colorado state court. The DMA requested rehearing on the jurisdictional issue, but the Tenth Circuit declined in early October to rehear the matter. The Court of Appeals then issued a mandate to the District Court on October 9, directing the lower court to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the claims. (The District Court has not yet implemented the mandate, so for now the federal injunction remains in place.)

On November 5, 2013, the DMA re-filed its challenge to the Colorado notice and reporting law in state District Court in Denver. At the same time, the DMA moved for a preliminary injunction, in order to continue the suspension of the law after the federal court injunction is lifted. Briefing on the motion for a preliminary injunction is expected to conclude in December, with a hearing on the motion likely to be scheduled for early January 2014. The DMA will request that the state court rule on the injunction request prior to January 31, the deadline under the law for retailers to send certain annual notices to customers who purchased at least $500 in goods from the retailers in the prior year.

Brann & Isaacson partners George Isaacson and Matthew Schaefer are co-counsel to the DMA in connection with the appeal.

We will keep you apprised of further developments in the state court proceeding.

Amicus Briefs Filed in Amazon.com and Overstock.com Supreme Court Case

On September 23, 2013, several organizations and companies filed briefs as amici curiae in support of the petitions for a writ of certiorari filed by Overstock.Com, Inc., Amazon.com., Inc., and Amazon Services, LLC, requesting review by the United States Supreme Court of the New York Court of Appeals decision in Overstock.com, Inc. v. New York Department of Taxation and Finance, 20 N.Y.3d 586, 987 N.E.2d 621 (2013). Among the briefs filed was the Brief of Newegg, Inc. and the Direct Marketing Association, Inc. (the "DMA") as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitioners. In their brief, Newegg and the DMA argue that the New York “click through affiliate nexus” statute, N.Y. Tax Law sec. 1101(b)(8)(vi), through an improper legislative presumption, narrows the zone of protected interstate advertising activity for out-of-state retailers under the Commerce Clause by shifting onto the retailers the burden of disproving “substantial nexus” with the state, in violation of the due process rights of retailers. Newegg and the DMA argue that the Constitution’s Due Process Clause prohibits states from using presumptions to interfere with matters that are removed from their authority by the Constitution, such as the regulation of interstate commerce. Brann & Isaacson partners Martin I. Eisenstein, George S. Isaacson, and Matthew P. Schaefer prepared the brief of amici on behalf of Newegg and the DMA.

Among the other organizations filing briefs were the Tax Foundation and the National Taxpayers Union, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the American Association of Attorney-Certified Public Accountants, and Scrapbook.com, Assisted Living Store, Inc., et al.

Amazon.com and Overstock.com Petition U.S. Supreme Court over New York Affiliate Nexus Law

We’ve written frequently about developments in Amazon.com and Overstock.com’s challenges to the New York State affiliate nexus law (a law which has inspired similar laws in many other states). Last spring, the New York Court of Appeals, the State’s highest court, upheld the law, stating that, in regards to the parties’ Commerce Clause claims, the “statute plainly satisfies the substantial nexus requirement. Active, in-state solicitation that produces a significant amount of revenue qualifies as ‘demonstrably more than a ‘slightest presence’’” under the Tax Appeals Tribunal’s 1995 ruling in the Orvis case. The Court continued by saying that “The bottom line is that if a vendor is paying New York residents to actively solicit business in this State, there is no reason why that vendor should not shoulder the appropriate tax burden.” The Court rejected the parties’ due process claims, as well.

Late last month, both Amazon.com and Overstock.com took their challenge to the United States Supreme Court, each filing a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the New York affiliate nexus law and of the New York Court of Appeals Decision (see status of the petitions here and here). New York has until October 23 to file a response in each case. However, as the Supreme Court’s review is discretionary, it is unclear whether the matter will be actually be heard by or decided by the Supreme Court. If not, the New York decision will stand, and other states’ versions of the affiliate nexus law will not be impacted. Meanwhile, the Marketplace Fairness Act, which could, in theory, make challenges such as these moot, remains in committee in the House of Representatives.

We will continue to track developments and keep our readers posted.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Lower Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Enjoin Colorado Notice and Reporting Law; Direct Marketing Association Will Seek Rehearing En Banc

Many of our readers have been following closely the litigation challenging the Colorado law passed in 2010, which required remote sellers to inform consumers of their obligation to self-report sales and use tax and also required direct marketers to turn over to the Colorado Department of Revenue the names of their Colorado customers along with sales transaction information. In 2012, the United States District Court in Denver declared the Colorado law unconstitutional, as a violation of the Commerce Clause. The Colorado Department of Revenue appealed the District Court decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Tuesday, August 20, 2013, the Tenth Circuit issued its decision in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl. The three judge panel hearing the case did not reach, or address in any way, the constitutional issues in the case. Instead, the Court ruled solely on the question of whether the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the case.

Although the jurisdiction of the federal courts was not contested by the parties, the appellate court concluded that the United States District Court in Denver did not have jurisdiction because of the so-called Tax Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. sec. 1341) (“TIA”). This jurisdictional statute prevents federal courts from entering judgments that restrain the collection of state taxes, and the Tenth Circuit ruled that it applied in this case. The Court stated that the challenge to the constitutionality of the Colorado law must be filed in state court rather than federal court. Therefore, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the District Court and directed it to dismiss the DMA’s Commerce Clause claims and to dissolve the permanent injunction against the Department of Revenue’s enforcement of the law.

Judge Enjoins Cook County from Enforcing Use Tax

We write frequently about the difficult task retailers face in complying with the myriad state and local tax regimes in this country. State and local tax rules are ever changing, both through legislative and regulatory efforts and also through actions of administrative bodies and even the courts. For your average retailer, keeping abreast of every change can be near impossible.

For instance, last November, Cook County, Illinois approved a use tax ordinance that went into effect April 1, 2013, and imposed tax on non-titled personal property purchased outside the county for use within the county. The Cook County use tax rate was set at 1.25%, while the County’s sales tax rate on similar purchases made inside the county was only 0.75%. The language used in adopting the use tax plainly stated the County’s purpose in adopting the new tax: “WHEREAS, it is in the interest of Cook County to take steps that will level the playing field among business interests, close tax loopholes, and incentivize the purchase of non-titled personal property within the County for use within Cook County.”

February 2013: An Eventful Month In The Debate Regarding Use Tax Collection By Internet Retailers

If it seems like there has been a lull in the debate regarding whether ecommerce vendors should be required to collect sales and use tax, this month has seen a series of developments that demonstrate the conflict continues apace.

On February 6, 2013, New York’s highest court heard oral arguments by attorneys for Amazon.com, Overstock.com, and the state Department of Taxation and Finance in the Internet retailers’ respective constitutional challenges to the New York affiliate nexus law enacted in 2008. (The cases are captioned Amazon.com v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Court of Appeals Case No.APL-2012-00045, and Overstock.com v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Court of Appeals Case No. APL-2012-0001.)  Recall that, under the New York law, an out-of-state retailer is presumed to be soliciting sales through representatives in the state if it enters into a contract with a New York resident for the placement of a link on the resident’s website that refers internet users to the out-of-state retailer’s website, pays the New York resident compensation based on sales to customers completed through the link, and makes a minimum $10,000 in such sales to New York customers.  See N.Y.Tax Law § 1101(b)(8)(vi).  A retailer with an in-state representative that solicits sales is required under New York law to collect and remit use tax on sales to New York customers.  The state prevailed before the trial court and intermediate appellate court finding that the law was not unconstitutional on its face.  According to reports, the Justices on the Court of Appeals appeared somewhat receptive to Amazon’s arguments that (1) the law violates the Due Process Clause because the presumption cannot be effectively rebutted and (2) the law violates the Quill “physical presence” standard of nexus.  That said, the state has the advantage of having prevailed below.  Decisions by a state high court are usually issued several months after argument, and we will continue to monitor the case.

Florida Introduces Affiliate Nexus Legislation

For the sixth year in a row, Florida legislators introduced a bill that (like many states before it) would create a rebuttable presumption that any out-of-state Internet retailer or mail order seller which enters into an agreement with a Florida resident (an “affiliate”) for paid referrals is subject to the State’s sales and use tax.  Referrals which subject out-of-state sellers to Florida tax are broadly defined and can be via “a link on an Internet website, an in-person oral presentation, telemarketing, or otherwise.”  Out-of-state sellers who have cumulative gross receipts of $10,000 or less from the referrals would not be subject to Florida tax.  As in several other states, the bill would allow sellers to rebut the presumption that they are subject to tax by submitting evidence that the affiliates “did not engage in any activity within [Florida] which was significantly associated with the dealer’s ability to establish or maintain the dealer’s market…during the 12 months immediately before the rebuttable presumption arose.”

As we have written previously, in response to a challenge by Amazon.com to a similar law enacted in 2008 in New York, a New York State appeals court held that the law was not unconstitutional on its face because it allows a retailer to rebut the presumption of solicitation.  The court remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the law violated the Constitution’s Commerce and Due Process Clauses as applied to Amazon.com.  In the meantime, as similar affiliate nexus laws have been passed in a handful of other states, many retailers have terminated their affiliate relationships.  Also, last spring, in a case argued by George Isaacson and Matt Schaefer of Brann & Isaacson, an Illinois court found that Illinois’ affiliate nexus law, which does not allow an affected retailer to rebut the statute’s conclusive determination that having affiliates in the state creates nexus, violates the Commerce Clause as well as the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Pennsylvania DOR Puts Constitutionally-Suspect Affiliate Nexus Interpretation on Hold

On January 27, 2012, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue delayed until September 1, 2012 the enforcement of its recently announced (and legally questionable) position regarding affiliate nexus.

We have written frequently about state affiliate nexus statutes and proposed legislation, as well as the challenge brought by our client, the Performance Marketing Association (“PMA”), against the Illinois affiliate nexus statute which took effect in July 2011. All of these affiliate nexus laws are of doubtful constitutionality. Indeed, Brann & Isaacson has argued on behalf of the PMA that the Illinois law impermissibly targets Internet performance marketing as a basis for asserting a use tax collection obligation on out-of-state retailers, in violation of both the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (“ITFA”). In an area of law where the authority of the states to expand their taxing power is very much in doubt, every state that has adopted an affiliate nexus law has done so through the legislative process by enacting a statute that purports to require reporting of use tax by remote sellers with no physical presence in the state.

On December 1, however, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue determined that it did not require a new affiliate nexus statute in order to require use tax collection by Internet sellers advertising online through websites located in Pennsylvania. Instead, the Department issued Sales and Use Tax Bulletin 2011-01, regarding Remote Seller Nexus. The Department asserts in the Bulletin that a variety of activities, if conducted in the state by, or on behalf of, an out-of-state company, already constitute sufficient nexus under the Commerce Clause and state law to require the remote seller to collect Pennsylvania use tax. Some of the activities cited by the Department have been the basis for a finding of nexus for an out-of-state company in prior court decisions around the country (and, presumably, have long been reflected in the Department’s enforcement practice). The Department, however, also included “affiliate nexus” on the list. The Department will now make a finding of nexus for an out-of-state company even if the company’s only activity is merely having a contractual relationship with a person located in Pennsylvania whose website has a link to the remote seller’s website, if the in-state affiliate receives “consideration” for the contractual relationship with the retailer.

There May Yet Be Life In The Quill Due Process Prong

In February 2011, we wrote about a case (Gordon v. Holder), in which the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the denial of preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the federal Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act), P.L. 111-154 (2010). The PACT Act mandates state sales/use tax compliance by “delivery sellers” of tobacco products, regardless of whether the seller has a physical presence in the state. In vacating the denial of the preliminary injunction, the D.C. Circuit also advised the lower court to address on remand the issue of whether the PACT Act’s imposition of “potentially disparate burdens on ecommerce” violates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution (even though Congress has the authority to impose such burdens under the Commerce Clause). It appears that the Gordon case remains on remand before the district court as of this writing.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has now also ruled that a federal law must satisfy a minimum standard under the Due Process Clause before it may purport to authorize the imposition of state use tax collection by remote sellers. Red Earth LLC v. Holder, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 4359919 (September 20, 2011). In Red Earth, the Second Circuit upheld the granting of a preliminary injunction against the PACT Act’s state tax collection provisions as they apply to certain Native American “delivery sellers” of tobacco products, on the grounds that the Act may be in violation of basic Due Process standards. Although, as the Court noted, the Due Process Clause does not require that a retailer have a “physical presence” in a state before a use tax obligation may be imposed, the Court found that the district court did not err in ruling that PACT Act likely violates the Due Process Clause because it “requires a seller to collect based on its making of [only] one delivery” in the state.

Performance Marketing Association Suit Challenging Illinois Affiliate Nexus Law Now in State Court

On July 27, the Performance Marketing Association (“PMA”) filed a complaint in the Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County, challenging the new Illinois “affiliate nexus” law (“HB 3659”). In the complaint, the PMA asserts the same claims first raised in its complaint filed in the United States District Court in Chicago on June 1. As detailed in the complaint, the PMA alleges that HB 3659 violates the Commerce Clause and impermissibly discriminates against electronic commerce in violation of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (“ITFA”).

In connection with filing the suit in state court, the PMA has voluntarily dismissed the federal court action.  The voluntary dismissal will prevent a protracted dispute with the Defendant, the Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue, regarding whether the federal court has jurisdiction over the case. Brann & Isaacson attorneys George Isaacson and Matt Schaefer are counsel to the PMA in the case.

California Adopts New Nexus Statute

On Tuesday, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law California’s new nexus legislation.  The law, which took effect immediately, expands the scope of activities requiring out-of-state retailers to collect and remit California sales and use tax by expanding the definition of “retailer engaged in business” in California.

The newly amended section 6203 of the California Revenue and Tax Code provides that a retailer engaged in business in the State includes any retailer that:

• has substantial nexus with the State within the meaning of the Commerce Clause;

• is a member of a commonly controlled group of corporations that includes another member which performs services for the out-of-state retailer in California (including the design and development of TPP sold by the out-of-state retailer or the solicitation of sales on behalf of the out-of-state retailer); or

• enters into an agreement under which a person in California refers potential customers to the out-of-state retailer via the internet or other means in exchange for a commission or other consideration.

Performance Marketing Association Files Lawsuit Challenging Illinois Affiliate Nexus Law

Performance Marketing Association, Inc. (“the PMA”), the leading trade association in the United States representing the interests of businesses, organizations, and individuals using and supporting performance marketing methods, filed a lawsuit yesterday in Federal District Court in Chicago against the Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue, Brian A. Hamer. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the Illinois affiliate nexus law, HB 3659.  Brann & Isaacson attorneys George Isaacson and Matthew Schaefer are counsel to the PMA in connection with the suit.

The case is captioned Performance Marketing Association, Inc. v. Hamer, Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois, case no. 1:11-cv-03690. A copy of the PMA’s Complaint is available here.

In its complaint, the PMA asserts that HB 3659 unlawfully targets the business of online performance marketing in order to expand Illinois’ regulatory authority beyond its borders. We have previously written about HB 3659 several times, including here and here. The PMA alleges that the law, which goes into effect July 1, 2011, violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (“ITFA”), by using the relationships between Illinois publishers of online advertisements and out-of-state advertisers as grounds for imposing use tax collection and reporting obligations on Internet retailers located outside the state. The enactment HB 3659 has damaged thousands of Illinois publishers through the loss of advertising contracts with Internet retailers.

Colorado Federal Court to Consider Possible Final Judgment on DMA’s Constitutional Challenge to the Colorado Notice and Reporting Law in DMA v. Huber

This post is to update our readers regarding the status of the Direct Marketing Association’s challenge to the constitutionality of Colorado HB 10-1193, the law enacted in 2010 that imposes discriminatory notice and reporting obligations on out-of-state retailers that do not collect Colorado sales tax. Brann & Isaacson attorneys George Isaacson and Matt Schaefer are counsel to the DMA in the case

In January 2011, the federal District Court for the District of Colorado granted the DMA’ s motion for a preliminary injunction and suspended enforcement of the law on the grounds that it likely violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution on two separate, and independent grounds. In February, the Defendant appealed to the Tenth Circuit, but subsequently withdrew the appeal after the District Court approved a proposal by the parties to file cross-motions for summary judgment seeking a final ruling by the Court on the Commerce Clause issues, while staying further proceedings on all other claims in the case. The District Court agreed that, if it awards summary judgment to either party, it will certify the matter for immediate appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, so that the Commerce Clause issues may be finally resolved.

Each party filed a motion for summary judgment with the District Court on May 6. Responses are due May 27, and replies are due June 10. A ruling by the Court on the motions, and likely an appeal to the Tenth Circuit, will follow. We will continue to update readers with further developments.

DMA v. Huber Update: Huber Appeals to Tenth Circuit

As we reported in January, the Direct Marketing Association (the "DMA") recently won a landmark preliminary injunction in its lawsuit against the State of Colorado.  The preliminary injunction prohibits the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Revenue from enforcing Colorado’s new notice and reporting law, H.B. 10-1193, which would require out-of-state direct marketers and online sellers who do not collect Colorado sales and use taxes to inform Colorado purchasers of their obligation to self-report tax and to provide Colorado customers summaries of their purchases, and also would require sellers to report specific customer purchase information to the State.  As we wrote previously, the Court, in granting the preliminary injunction, found that the requirements of H.B. 10-1193 likely both violated the Commerce Clause and would cause irreparable harm to out-of-state retailers if enforced

On February 25, the Defendant filed an interlocutory appeal of the District Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction, seeking review of the injunction by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  It will likely be six to nine months before the Tenth Circuit issues its ruling in the matter, but we will keep you updated as developments arise.

D.C. Circuit Cites Quill as Instructive in Analyzing the Due Process Ramifications of a National Tax Scheme

The Supreme Court’s analysis in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) has been cited favorably again, this time with regard to a Due Process challenge to a federal statute. On February 18, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction brought by a plaintiff challenging the constitutionality of a federal law regulating online sales of tobacco products, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Gordon v. Holder, 2011 WL559002 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 18, 2011). Previewing the issues to be addressed by the District Court on remand, the Court of Appeals cited Quill as “instructive” in analyzing the plaintiff’s claim that the federal statute violates the Due Process Clause.

In a statement likely to send shivers up the spines of the members of the Governing Board of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement and other advocates for federal legislation to override Quill’s “physical presence” requirement arising under the Commerce Clause, the D.C. Circuit commented that “there remains an open question whether a national authorization of disparate state levies on e-commerce renders concerns about presence and burden obsolete” as a matter of Due Process. Id. at *4 (emphasis added). While this statement, and the Court’s opinion, does not alter the analysis under Quill of the constitutionality of state tax (and tax-related) laws under the Commerce Clause, it suggests that the concerns about “presence and burden” presented in Quill are potentially also relevant to determining whether a federal law authorizing state tax levies is consistent with the Due Process Clause.

Maine Introduces Modified, Colorado-Style Notice and Reporting Law, Which Also Likely Violates The Commerce Clause

On February 9, 2011, the Maine Legislature introduced a bill (LD 469) which would impose upon certain out-of-state retailers a set of notice and reporting obligations that closely parallel the requirements of Colorado’s 2010 law, H.B. 10-1193. Enforcement of H.B. 10-1193 was recently enjoined by a federal judge in Denver on the grounds that such requirements are likely unconstitutional and in violation of the Commerce Clause. As we have reported in prior posts, Brann & Isaacson represents the Direct Marketing Association in the federal court challenge to the now-suspended Colorado law, after which the Maine bill is patterned.

Maine’s LD 469 includes all three of the Colorado law’s notice and reporting requirements – retailers must provide the Transactional Notice, Annual Purchase Summaries to customers, and Customer Information Reports to revenue officials – and would impose penalties on affected retailers for non-compliance with the law.  Notably, however, unlike the Colorado law, the Maine bill includes no $500 annual minimum purchase threshold to trigger the requirement that an affected retailer must send a customer an Annual Purchase Summary. Similar to Colorado’s law, under LD 469 such annual summaries to customers must include, if available, “[d]escriptions of items purchased,” as well as dates and amounts.  Also in contrast to Colorado, the report to Maine Revenue Services must include all of the information provided to each purchaser in the annual summary – thereby requiring that at least descriptions of the items purchased by customers of an affected out-of-state retailer be turned over to Maine Revenue Services. The Maine bill thus raises even more significant privacy concerns for Maine consumers buying from affected retailers than does the privacy-invading Colorado law.

DMA Wins Landmark Injunction Against State of Colorado

On behalf of the Direct Marketing Association, Brann & Isaacson partners George Isaacson and Matthew Schaefer won a landmark preliminary injunction in federal court in a lawsuit that affects thousands of direct marketers across the country. The ruling prohibits the State of Colorado from enforcing its controversial new law, H.B. 10-1193, that required direct marketers to -- among other things -- report to the state the names, addresses, and purchase amounts of their customers.

To be clear, so long as the injunction remains in place, out-of-state retailers that do not have nexus with Colorado and do not collect Colorado sales tax are no longer required to: (1) give notice to their Colorado customers, in connection with each sale, that the customer must report Colorado use tax (the “Transactional Notice”); (2) send via First Class mail by January 31, to each customer that purchased more than $500 of goods for delivery to Colorado during 2010, a summary of their purchases for the year (the “Annual Purchase Summary”); or (3) submit a report to the Colorado Department of Revenue, by March 1, listing the name, billing and shipping addresses, and total amount of purchases of all customers who purchased goods for delivery to Colorado (the “Customer Information Report”).  See http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Revenue/REVX/1251581938320.

The DMA argued that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by (a) imposing discriminatory obligations upon out-of-state retailers that do not apply to in-state Colorado retailers, and (b) unduly burdening interstate commerce under principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). The Court accepted these arguments in finding that the DMA had a likelihood of success on both Commerce Clause counts, and concluded that out-of-state retailers subject to the new law would suffer irreparable harm if enforcement of the statute is not barred.

The preliminary injunction entered by the Court does not end the case, but it effectively suspends the law while the litigation continues and until the Court makes a final ruling regarding the law’s constitutionality.

You can read a copy of the order here.

Read previous posts about the lawsuit here and here.