24 N.W.3d 541
S.D.2025Background
- Joshua Lapin, a self-described “digital nomad,” stayed in South Dakota for 30 days in early 2021, during which he obtained a driver’s license, registered to vote, and opened a personal mailbox (PMB); he then left the state and traveled internationally for nearly two years.
- Lapin sued Zeetogroup, LLC, alleging that he received 46 unlawful “spam” emails between June and July 2021 in violation of South Dakota’s anti-spam law (SDCL 37-24-47).
- Lapin claimed his email address qualified as a “South Dakota electronic mail address” because he was a “resident of this State.”
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Zeetogroup, finding Lapin was not a “resident of this State” when he received the emails, as he was not physically present.
- Lapin appealed, arguing that obtaining a driver’s license, voter registration, and his subjective intent established residency, and challenged the constitutional validity of any longer residency requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of "resident of this State" for spam law | Legal residence (license, vote) suffices for residency | Requires actual, physical presence when emails were received | "Resident" means actual residence; Lapin was not physically present, claim fails |
| Use of residency definitions from other SD statutes | Definitions for voting/DMV should apply here | Those are context-specific and not generalizable | Definitions from other titles do not control anti-spam statute |
| Equal Protection (Durational residency requirements) | Any period >30 days is unconstitutional under right to travel | No durational requirement imposed by the statue | No durational residency requirement found; constitutional challenge rejected |
| Ability to sue over spam emails post-return to SD | Could sue once returned, as intent was always to ‘return’ | Not relevant; claim is about emails received while absent | Only emails received while actually resident in SD can be actionable |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex. rel. Jealous of Him v. Mills, 627 N.W.2d 790 (S.D. 2001) (distinction between residence and domicile)
- In re G.R.F., 569 N.W.2d 29 (S.D. 1997) (intent-based difference between residence and domicile)
- Parsley v. Parsley, 734 N.W.2d 813 (S.D. 2007) (actual residence and intent factors for state residency)
- Rush v. Rush, 866 N.W.2d 556 (S.D. 2015) (physical presence and ties to the state necessary for residency)