In the initial filing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had awarded summary judgment to Omega on all of Mummagraphics' claims finding that the commercial emails from Omega did not violate the CAN-SPAM Act, and that the CAN-SPAM Act preempted Oklahoma state law.

First, each message stated that the recipient had signed up for the Cruise.com mailing list, but it had not asked that inbox@webguy.net receive the company's offers.

Second, while each message listed Cruise.com as the sending organization, each also included the address "FL-Broadcast.net" (not a domain name linked to Cruise.com) in its header information.

Instead, he asked Omega to remove from all future mailings every address containing any of the domain names listed on Mummagraphics' OptOutByDomain.com website.

The letter claimed that the messages violated federal and state laws and said that Mummagraphics intended to sue for at least $150,000 in statutory damages unless they settled the matter for $6,250.

Mummagraphics raised counterclaims under CAN-SPAM Act and the Oklahoma law (these were the only claims that were pending in front of Fourth Circuit).

In addition, Mummagraphics had failed to allege material inaccuracies or pattern of failure to conform to opt-out requirements that is necessary to establish liability under the CAN-SPAM Act.

The court reasoned that the CAN-SPAM Act's exceptions only allow states to punish "falsity and deception," and immaterial representation falls outside of the meaning of these terms.

Mummagraphics argued that it was entitled to damages under the provisions of Oklahoma law which provide that "[i]t shall be unlawful for a person to initiate an electronic email message that the sender knows, or has reasons to know (1) misrepresents any information in identifying the point of origin or the transmission path of the electronic mail message; (2) does not contain information identifying the point of origin or the transmission path of the electronic mail message; or contains false, malicious or misleading information which purposefully or negligently injures a person.

"[2] The district court had held that the above provisions of the Oklahoma statute were preempted by the CAN-SPAM Act insofar as they applied to immaterial misrepresentations.

Adopting such a meaning would also defeat the very purpose of the CAN-SPAM Act which is to ensure a careful balance between preserving a potentially useful commercial tool (electronic communication) and preventing its abuse.

The court rejected these claims, finding that the alleged misrepresentations were not "materially false or misleading" in view of the CAN-SPAM Act.

For this purpose, the Cruise.com emails, even though contained incorrect information in their headers, were otherwise full of ways to "identify, locate or respond to the sender" or to "investigate [an] alleges violation" of the CAN-SPAM Act.

Because the emails contained accurate identifiers about the sender, any inaccuracies in the header could not have impaired the efforts of any recipient, law enforcement organization, or other party raising a CAN-SPAM claim to find the company.

The court also rejected Mummagraphics' claim for alleged violation of the CAN-SPAM Act's e-mail removal provisions.

§ 7704(a)(3), the Act requires that commercial emails include "a functioning return electronic mail address or other form of Internet-based mechanism .

§ 7706(g)(1) the Act also permits internet access service providers to bring suit under these provisions for "a pattern or practice" that violates the requirements.

The court held that Mummagraphics' sole allegation that the appellees failed to remove inbox@webguy.net from the ′′E-deals′′ mailing list within 10 days of Mark Mumma's call to Omega's general counsel did not satisfy the standard of "a pattern or practice."

"[6] Here, Mummagraphics had failed to submit any evidence the receiving the 11 commercial emails from Cruise.com placed a meaningful burden on its computer system.

After Omega World Travel, some commentators were concerned that the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of CAN-SPAM may frustrate consumers' self-help measures and further insulate spammers from prosecution.