## Facts

- White Buffalo Ventures, LLC operated online dating services and marketed to University of Texas at Austin (UT) students.
- UT provided free email accounts on the “utexas.edu” domain and operated its own email servers for students, faculty, and staff.
- UT maintained internal anti-solicitation/anti-spam rules administered through its information technology department to block incoming unsolicited commercial email and to prevent transmission of such messages.
- White Buffalo obtained UT student email addresses through Texas public-information laws and sent bulk commercial advertising emails to those accounts.
- After student complaints and an investigation, UT sent a cease-and-desist letter; White Buffalo refused to stop.
- UT then blocked incoming messages associated with the sender’s IP address, citing protection of users’ time and preservation of network efficiency.

## Issues

1. Whether the CAN-SPAM Act preempted UT’s internal anti-spam policy and barred UT from blocking unsolicited commercial emails.
2. Whether UT’s content- and viewpoint-neutral blocking of unsolicited commercial bulk email violated the First Amendment rights of the sender.
3. Whether a public university email system is a public forum for First Amendment purposes (and, if so, what standard applies).

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for UT and the denial of injunctive relief.
- The CAN-SPAM Act did not preempt UT’s internal anti-spam policy or its decision to block messages on its own network.
- UT’s blocking of unsolicited commercial bulk email did not violate the First Amendment under commercial speech doctrine because the policy satisfied the Central Hudson test.
- The court declined to decide the forum-status question for university email systems.

## Legal Principles

- CAN-SPAM’s preemption clause targets state or local enactments regulating commercial email; it does not strip network owners of authority to manage, filter, and block traffic on their own systems.
- A public university acting as operator of its own email infrastructure may impose internal use rules and technical filters without being treated as a general regulator of email outside its network.
- Unsolicited bulk advertising emails are commercial speech subject to intermediate scrutiny under Central Hudson.
- Under Central Hudson, a content- and viewpoint-neutral restriction on lawful commercial speech is valid if it serves substantial interests, directly advances those interests, and is not more extensive than necessary.
- Protecting users from time burdens caused by spam and protecting server efficiency are substantial interests that can justify blocking unsolicited commercial bulk email.
- The First Amendment does not require a public university to carry unsolicited commercial advertising through its email system when reasonable alternative channels remain available.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that a public university may block unsolicited commercial bulk emails on its own email system under a content- and viewpoint-neutral policy, and that the CAN-SPAM Act does not preempt such internal network management.


White Buffalo Ventures, LLC v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 420 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2005)