In Stern v. Bluestone, a lawyer who represents plaintiffs in legal malpractice suits sent faxes to lawyers with updates on the law. A lawyer didn't like getting a fax every month, and so sued. The court held that the faxes, because they indirectly indicated the lawyer's availability to represent plaintiffs in malpractice cases by including the lawyer's contact info, was an unsolicited fax that violated a federal statute against spam-faxes.
Summary judgment for the lawyer who received the faxes; question is damages.
I'm not sure what impact the case has beyond its narrow confines -- don't fax your newsletters -- but the conclusion that information about the law becomes an indirect offer to do a commercial transaction makes me worried: is that awful close to a solicitation? If it is, then what's this blawg? What is my e-ethics newsletter? Hmmmm.
And one more key point: the court held that putting a fax number in a directory might be "implied permission" to send a fax, but it wasn't "express permission" and that's what the statute requires. Recall the debate about unsolicited e-mail: this case arguably means that by putting an e-mail link up, your firm is giving implied permission for prospective clients to send away...
Hmmmm.