The Maryland Tax on digital advertising arbitrarily discriminates against internet commerce and regulates commercial conduct far outside of Maryland’s borders. In addition to violating federal statute and the core constitutional guarantees, the tax will sharply limit the availability of high-quality ad-supported content for consumers. NetChoice joined this case to protect key constitutional principles and to ensure that commerce is not discriminated against just because it happens to take place online.
NetChoice Experts on HB 732
Chris Marchese
As Counsel, Chris analyzes technology-related legislative and regulatory issues at both the federal and state level. His portfolio includes monitoring and analyzing proposals to amend § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, antitrust enforcement, and potential barriers to free speech and free enterprise on the internet.
Before joining NetChoice in 2019, Chris worked as a law clerk at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, where he analyzed legal issues relevant to the business community, including state-court decisions that threatened traditional liability rules. Chris earned his J.D. from Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, and earned a B.A. in History and Political Science at Boston College, graduating cum laude from both institutions. Chris is a member of the D.C. bar.
Carl Szabo
As Vice President and General Counsel, Carl analyzes tech-related legislative and regulatory initiatives relevant to online companies. He monitors and analyzes Federal and state legislation. Carl is also an adjunct professor of internet law at the George Mason Antonin Scalia Law School.
Carl obtained his J.D. and Communications Law Certificate from the Catholic University of America, magna cum laude, and Carl obtained his B.A. in Economics, Managerial Studies, and Policy Studies from Rice University. Carl is licensed to practice law in Washington, DC and is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US)
Court Filings
- Chamber of Commerce, NetChoice et al. Complaint
- Franchot’s Motion to Dismiss
- District Court Decision
- Grants in part and denies in part Franchot’s motion to dismiss
- They said the Tax Injunction Act bars plaintiffs’ challenge to the charge imposed by the Maryland Tax and the Tax Injunction Act does not preclude plaintiffs’ challenge to the Tax’s pass-through prohibition provision.