California Affiliate Nexus Law Goes Into Effect

We have written frequentlyabout the California affiliate nexus statute, AB 155, which was adopted in June 2011, but was temporarily repealed in September 2011, pending Congressional action on a bill rejecting the Quill physical presence test. Since Congress has not enacted such a law, AB155 is set to go into effect tomorrow.

The California Board of Equalization (“BOE”) undertook a lengthy rulemaking process over the past year to flesh out the requirements of the law. Much of this effort is reflected in the BOE’s newly amended version of California Regulation 1684. Here are some of the key points:

• The law provides that an affiliate relationship will create nexus only if the payment to the affiliate is based upon a completed sale of tangible personal property; i.e., a commission-based arrangement. Thus, pay-per-click payment arrangements with affiliates do not create nexus. 
• The statute, and Regulation 1684 which interprets the statute, provides that if the arrangement with the affiliate is for the purchase of advertisements to be delivered on the Internet, the retailer will not be deemed to have nexus if the affiliate does not directly or indirectly solicit customers in California through the use of flyers, newsletters, telephone calls, email, blogs, social networking sites, or other means of direct or indirect solicitation specifically targeted at potential customers in California. Thus, if a retailer places content on the website of a California affiliate that provides information regarding the retailer’s products and the affiliate links to the retailer’s website, so long as the affiliate does not make any solicitations on behalf of the retailer that specifically target CA residents, the retailer should not have nexus under the California statute. 
• Regulation 1684 provides for a safe harbor if (1) the agreement between the retailer and affiliate provides for a prohibition of California solicitation activities on behalf of the retailer, such as distributing flyers or coupons or sending emails; (2) the retailer obtains certificates annually from the California-based affiliates that it has not engaged in any such prohibited solicited activities; and (3) the retailer accepts such certificates in good faith. 

Unfortunately, many of these important details were omitted from recent correspondence sent by the BOE to retailers, which included a form of nexus questionnaire. The BOE stated that a retailer is engaged in business in California and thus required to collect the California sales and use tax if it has a relationship with an affiliate operating in California that refers potential customers to the retailer. However, nowhere in the materials sent out by the BOE is there any mention of the exceptions to the finding of nexus discussed above.

Before making the decision either to discontinue affiliates or to collect California sales and use tax, ecommerce sellers should review the nature of their affiliate relationships to determine whether those relationships, as currently structured or as revised in the future, will create nexus in California under the actual provisions of the law. Moreover, a prudent e-tailer should not respond to the BOE questionnaire unless and until it has carefully reviewed its activities with competent professionals.

Yet Another State (Georgia) Adopts a Click-Through Nexus Law

On April 20, 2012, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed legislation revising the definition of “dealer” in the Georgia statute. Under Georgia law, a dealer is required to collect and remit sales/use tax on all taxable sales to Georgia residents.


The first change to the dealer definition is to adopt a so-called “click-through nexus” law (or “Internet affiliate nexus” law), along the lines of the New York statute enacted in 2008. Georgia is now the eighth state to adopt a click-through nexus law. As previously reported in this blog, New York was the first state to adopt a nexus click-through statute, followed by Rhode Island, North Carolina, Arkansas, Illinois, Connecticut, California and Pennsylvania. (The California statute is effective only if federal legislation is not adopted, and will go into effect on January 1, 2013). (The Pennsylvania “law,” which is an administrative rule, does not commence until September 1, 2012).

*As previously reported in our blog, on April 25, 2012, the Illinois Circuit Court ruled from the bench that the Illinois “click-though nexus” (or “Internet affiliate nexus”) statute is unconstitutional under the substantial nexus requirement of the Commerce Clause and also violates the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act’s moratorium against discriminatory state taxes on electronic commerce.* (As a ruling of a court in a different state, the Illinois court’s decision striking down the Illinois statute has no direct effect on the Georgia click-through nexus law, but certainly would have some relevance in any review of the statute. )

Much like the New York law, the Georgia statute, HB 386 (LC 34 3484S/AP), provides that a retailer that enters into an agreement with one or more persons who are residents of Georgia under which the resident, for a commission or other consideration based on completed sales, directly or indirectly refers potential customers to the retailer, if the retailer’s cumulative gross receipts from sales by such persons exceed more than $50,000 during the preceding twelve months. (Under the New York law, the threshold is $10,000.) If the retailer enters into such an agreement, a presumption is created that the retailer is a dealer required to collect the Georgia sales and use tax. However, the presumption may be rebutted by submitting proof that the residents with whom the person has an agreement do not engage in any activity within Georgia that is significantly associated with the person’s ability to establish or maintain a market in Georgia during the preceding twelve months. The proof may consist of sworn written statements with the residents attesting to the fact that they have not engaged in any solicitation in the state on behalf of the retailer. It is somewhat unclear when this portion of the statute goes into effect; the earliest date is July 18, 2012 but it may be as late as December 30, 2012.

In short, the Georgia statute is modeled after the New York statute. Like the New York statute, a retailer can overcome the presumption of nexus by a showing that the resident does not engage in any activity in the state to maintain a market in the state. (This is in contrast to the Connecticut and Illinois statutes, which create a per se finding of nexus if the requisite relationship is found to exist).

The new Georgia law also provides for “affiliate nexus,” similar to the recently adopted Utah statute concerning companies related through common ownership, as discussed in my article in this blog dated April 2, 2012. This part of the law goes into effect on October 1, 2012. In particular, if a retailer and any other company under common ownership or control that has substantial nexus in Georgia sells a similar line of products in the state under a similar business name or use substantially similar trademarks or service marks, then a presumption of nexus is created. Again, this presumption can be rebutted by a showing that the in-state affiliate does not engage in any in-state activities on behalf of the retailer that are significantly associated with the retailer’s ability to establish a market.

The new Georgia law does provide a safe harbor for participation in trade show activities of five days or less and if the retailer “did not derive more than $100,000 of net income from those activities during the prior calendar year.” It is unclear whether the term “deriv[ation] . . . of net income” means sales less expenses made at the trade show or whether it means sales remotely made.

In sum, online retailers and other direct marketers should carefully scrutinize their existing relationships to make sure that their companies are not vulnerable to a finding of nexus under the new Georgia law. While such review does not necessarily mean discontinuance of click-through relationships, it does require making sure that any agreement with affiliates is tailored to overcome the presumption if sales through such affiliates are greater than $50,000.

Court Rules that the Illinois Internet Affiliate Nexus Law is Unconstitutional and Violates the Internet Tax Freedom Act

Yesterday (April 25, 2012), Judge Robert Lopez Cepero of the Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County granted summary judgment in favor of the Performance Marketing Association (“PMA”) in its constitutional challenge to the Illinois "Internet affiliate nexus" statute, Public Act 96-1544 (the “Act”), which took effect in July 2011. Judge Cepero ruled from the bench, after oral argument by the parties’ counsel, that the Illinois law is both unconstitutional under the “substantial nexus” requirement of the Commerce Clause and violates the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act's moratorium against discriminatory state taxes on electronic commerce. The Court will enter a formal order encapsulating its rulings, although Judge Cepero indicated that he does not plan to issue a written opinion, separate from his remarks made on the record at the hearing. The Defendant, the Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue, is said to be reviewing his options, but is expected to appeal the ruling directly to the Illinois Supreme Court. (George Isaacson and Matt Schaefer of Brann & Isaacson represent the PMA in the case.)


Like other “Internet affiliate nexus” laws, the Illinois statute seeks to impose a use tax collection obligation upon out-of-state Internet retailers who enter into contracts with affiliates located in the state, under which the affiliate places a link on its website connecting Internet users to the retailer’s website, and receives commissions or other compensation based on sales made to such customers. Under the terms of the Act, any Internet retailer that realized $10,000 in annual sales from customers who reached its website through links on the sites of Illinois Internet affiliates would be required to collect Illinois use tax. The Court held, however, that the activity described in the Illinois law was not sufficient to create use tax nexus with Illinois for purposes of the Commerce Clause. The Court also held that imposing a use tax collection obligation upon Internet retailers engaged in such online linking relationships, but not on other retailers engaged in similar offline adverting arrangements, is “premature” in light of the ITFA's moratorium, which remains in effect until November 1, 2014.

May News Roundup: Michigan Repeals MBT; Louisiana Proposes Click-Through Nexus Legislation

On Wednesday, Governor Snyder signed into law Michigan’s new corporate income tax, which will replace the Michigan Business Tax. The new corporate income tax, effective January 1, 2012, uses a single factor (sales) for apportionment purposes and has a flat rate of 6%. However, despite the repeal of the MBT, the new corporate income tax will retain the economic nexus standard of $350,000 in gross receipts, which we have written about previously here. Any business with a physical presence of at least one day in the state would also be required to report the corporate income tax. Unlike the MBT, however, P.L.86-272 applies to the tax and provides some protections, as we have most recently written about here. Internet sellers and direct marketers should consult their tax counsel regarding the significance of the new tax and its impact on their businesses.

In other news, this week, the Louisiana legislature threw its hat into the ring of states proposing click-through nexus laws with H.B. 641. We have written previously about nexus-expanding legislation throughout the country here and here. Although Vermont and Texas legislatures recently passed their own versions of the law, as of this writing, the governor in each state has yet to sign the bill. We will keep you posted as developments arise.

Have a safe and festive Memorial Day, all!

Illinois Governor Signs "Amazon" Affiliate Nexus Law

On March 10, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into law HB 3659, the affiliate nexus bill passed by the legislature in January. Quinn's signing makes Illinois the fourth state (along with New York, Rhode Island, and North Carolina) to enact such a law. The Illinois bill provides that once an out-of-state Internet retailer realizes $10,000 in receipts from sales made to customers linked to the retailer's website from the websites of its Illinois affiliates, the retailer will be deemed to be a “retailer having or maintaining a place of business in this State” and be obligated to collect and remit tax on all of its sales to Illinois consumers.

In response, Amazon.com promptly informed its Illinois affiliates that it is terminating its relationships with them. Look for further developments in the coming days.

A Reminder About The State Tax Implications of Passive Partnership Interests: U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Review State Court Ruling That Mere Partnership Interest Creates Income Tax Nexus

E-commerce companies that have affiliates doing business as (or even just investment interests in) partnerships or other pass-through entities in states in which the e-commerce company has no direct presence should be aware that such partnership interests may be deemed to create income tax nexus for the company.  A number of state laws and regulations provide that ownership in a pass-through entity establishes nexus for the owner.  See, e.g., 34 TAC Sec. 3.586(c)(13) [Texas]; 830 CMR 63.39.1(8) [Massachusetts]. To date, state tax tribunals have agreed. See, e.g., Shell Gas Gathering Corp. #2, N.Y. Tax Appeals Tribunal, DTA Nos. 821569 and 921570 (Sept. 23, 2010).

Furthermore, on January 25, 2011, the United States Supreme Court declined a petition asking the Court to review a Kentucky Appeals Court decision that an out-of-state corporation was properly required to pay Kentucky state income tax, despite the fact that its only connection to Kentucky was its interest in a partnership that was engaged in business in the state.  Asworth, LLC v. Kentucky Department of Revenue, 2009 WL 3877518 (Ky. App. Ct. Feb. 10, 2010), review denied (Ky. 2010) and cert denied, U.S. Supreme Court Dkt. 10-662 (Jan. 25, 2011).  While mere passive ownership in a partnership that generates revenue from activities in a state would not, by itself, be enough to subject the partner-owner to nexus for sales and use tax purposes, the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the Kentucky decision leaves undisturbed the position taken by many states that owners of an interest in a pass-though entity can be compelled to report state income tax.

Oklahoma Seeks to Expand the Definition of Nexus for Internet and Catalog Retailers

In our blog post last week, we discussed the new Oklahoma sales tax statute, which contains a “Colorado-like” reporting requirement for those Internet and catalog sellers that do not collect and remit the Oklahoma sales and use tax. As a second part of the statute, the Oklahoma legislature also expanded the definition of those companies that are engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property for use in Oklahoma; i.e. those companies required to register to collect and remit the Oklahoma sales and use tax.  This part of the statute, like the reporting requirements section, is not the model of clarity, so there is some ambiguity in the statute.

First, the statute provides for “affiliate nexus” attribution. Thus, under the new law a retailer that otherwise does not have nexus based on its own activities (an out-of-state retailer) is deemed to have nexus if it and another retailer that has nexus with Oklahoma are commonly-owned, and if: (i) the Oklahoma-retailer sells the same or a “substantially similar” line of products under the same trade name as that of the non-nexus retailer (the so-called multi-channel retailer); (ii) the facilities or employees of the Oklahoma retailer are used to advertise, promote or facilitate sales by the out-of-state retailer; or (iii) the in-state retailer has a warehouse or similar place of business in Oklahoma that is used to deliver property to the out-of-state retailer’s customers, as in a drop ship relationship. Additionally, any retailer that is part of a controlled group (as defined under the Internal Revenue Code) faces a rebuttable presumption that it is engaged in business in Oklahoma if a component member of the controlled group is engaged in any of the activities described above. The presumption can be rebutted if the retailer shows that the component member did not do any of those activities on behalf of the retailer. The foregoing provisions are more comprehensive than those of other state statutes, which have some but not all of the provisions regarding common ownership. Colorado’s statute, for example, provides for a presumption of nexus similar to that described for members of controlled groups above and Arkansas’ statute contains a similar provision to that of the first category.

The statutory definition of retailer is also expanded to now include an out-of-state company that has a “contractual relationship with an entity to provide and perform installation or maintenance services for the retailer’s purchasers” in Oklahoma. This statutory provision is similar but not identical to that in Virginia. Va. Code § 58.1-612.

Of course, even if a retailer satisfies the standard under this new law, unless the retailer has nexus under the Quill Commerce Clause test, Oklahoma would not be justified in requiring sales tax collection from the retailer. Several of the provisions in the new law raise significant constitutional law questions. Please see, for example, the recent U.S. District Court for Louisiana decision in St. Tammany Parish Tax Collector v. Barnesandnoble.com, Civ. Act. No. 05-5695 (E.D. La., March 22, 2007).

California Reinserts Reporting Requirements; Tennessee’s Proposal to Expand Nexus Dies in Committee

We’ve been tracking developments in affiliate nexus legislation and attempts to impose Colorado-style reporting requirements on vendors in other states. Since our last updates (here and here), there have been further developments of note:

California

On May 14, we wrote that the California Assembly nixed proposed affiliate nexus legislation and Colorado-style reporting requirements before passing its bill onto the State’s Senate.  As in the Assembly’s version, the current iteration of the bill provides that retailers not required to collect use tax provide readily visible notice on their websites and catalogues that use tax is due from the purchaser.  Last week, however, the California Senate amended the bill to reinsert reporting requirements.

Under the amended bill, the “[State Board of Equalization] may require the filing of reports” by any person having possession or custody of information relating to sales of tangible personal property (“TPP”) subject to the tax. § 7055(a) (as proposed) (emphasis added). It is unclear to whom, exactly, this possible reporting requirement applies, but the reports “shall be filed when the board requires” and must include names and addresses of purchasers of TPP, the sales price of the TPP, the date of the sale and “such other information as the board may require.”

Additionally, the proposed subsections (b)(1) and (2) indicate mandatory reporting for vendors not registered to collect sales tax whose sales exceed a relatively modest threshold. The subsections require “every person that is not registered with the board” that sells TPP subject to use tax, to file quarterly reports including names, addresses, sales prices, the dates of sales, and “such other information as the board may require.” Subsection (b)(2) provides that the reporting requirement in (b)(1) does not apply to persons whose receipts are less than $100,000 in the prior year and who are reasonably expected to have receipts less than $100,000 in the current year.

It is unclear whether the Senate’s version will survive the legislative process.  If the amended bill is passed by the Senate, it must go back before the Assembly for agreement on the amendments. If the Assembly does not agree with the Senate’s amendments, it will be referred to a conference committee formed of members of both houses to resolve any differences.

We will continue tracking the progress of the bill to keep you informed of any new reporting requirements that may be imposed by the State. We also reiterate our previously-stated concerns: that the proposed bill imposes even more onerous reporting obligations than the Colorado statute, and that it may encourage other states to follow suit in attempts to regulate interstate commerce.

Tennessee

We last wrote about Tennessee in April, noting that the State’s affiliate nexus bill had been recommended for passage, but that the State’s Department of Revenue had indicated that it did not believe a mere affiliate relationship would be adequate for a finding of nexus.  The legislation has since died in committee, when the General Assembly adjourned on June 10. Only time will tell whether Tennessee intends to make a second run at imposing affiliate nexus rules on out-of-state vendors.

UPDATE, Aug. 31, 2010:  Please see our most recent post concerning the status of the California Bill here.

UPDATE, Jul. 5, 2011: California has enacted a new nexus law.

California Nixes Affiliate Nexus Legislation; Connecticut’s Attempts Stall

Since our last update on the status of various legislative attempts to introduce Amazon-style affiliate nexus across the country, there have been a few important developments:

California

In the most current iteration of its bill, passed by the State Assembly on May 6, California scrapped proposed affiliate nexus and Colorado-style notice requirements (discussed here by us last month), and instead merely requires out-of-state retailers to provide notice on their websites and in their catalogues that California customers are required to remit use tax.  In the bill analysis provided by the Assembly’s Revenue and Taxation Committee, the Committee rightly noted that under Quill, California is constitutionally prohibited from collecting sales tax from out-of-state retailers with no physical presence in the State.  The Committee also noted that the bill provides no repercussions for non-compliant retailers.  The bill is now before the State Senate.

Connecticut

In Connecticut, the last action taken on H.B. No. 5481, the proposed affiliate nexus legislation, was on April 13.  The 2010 regular session of the State’s legislature adjourned on May 5 without holding any vote on the bill, and it appears that no affiliate nexus legislation will be enacted in the near future.


UPDATE, Aug. 31, 2010:  Please see our most recent post concerning the status of this California Bill here.

UPDATE, Jul. 5, 2011: California has enacted a new nexus law.

North Carolina’s “Carrot and Stick” Approach To Sales Tax Collection

Recently, a number of our clients received a letter from the North Carolina Department of Revenue, which contained an announcement by the Department of a new “Internet Transactions Resolution Program.” North Carolina, which is one of the three states that has adopted an Amazon Affiliate Nexus Law (see my blog post dated March 9, 2010), provides the following “carrot” as part of the Program: if a retailer registers for sales and use tax and agrees to collect and remit those taxes for four years, beginning September 1, 2010, the Department in turn will not assess tax, penalties or interest for the period prior to September 1, 2010.  In addition, the Department states that it will not seek to obtain information regarding names and addresses of the retailer’s customers prior to September 1, 2010.  (It is noteworthy that Amazon has sued the Department of Revenue on the ground that it has sought personally identifiable information from Amazon regarding Amazon’s customers.)

So, now to the “stick.”  The Department also notes in its letter to direct marketers that for those retailers who fail to participate but are “subject to nexus filing requirements,” the Department will assess all applicable tax, interest and penalties and will not waive any penalties.  Thus, the Department is offering the carrot of an amnesty for past tax liability and relief from any demand for customer information from the retailer for periods prior to September 1, 2010, in lieu of the enforcement.

The next obvious question is how enticing is the carrot and, conversely, how threatening is the stick?  Clearly, if a retailer does not have an affiliate program, and does not otherwise have a physical presence in North Carolina, neither the carrot nor the stick may be enough to induce the retailer to register for sales and use tax purposes.  If, however, a retailer has an affiliate program involving North Carolina companies or individuals, or creating a physical presence in North Carolina, then the offer from the Department may be attractive.

A retailer, guided by its counsel, should look at the nature of its affiliate relationships and, in particular, the terms and conditions of its affiliate program, to determine how it fits within the nexus provisions of the North Carolina statute.  For example, the North Carolina statute states that if a retailer uses an affiliate that is a North Carolina resident and is not able to overcome the presumption that the affiliate is engaged in traditional solicitation activities in the state, then the retailer has nexus.  For retailers that may have difficulty rebutting the presumption, the Department’s offer may be attractive.  If, however, a retailer believes that it can overcome the statutory presumption of nexus resulting from its affiliate relationships, then it would need to engage in a traditional cost-benefit analysis, i.e., do the costs of registering to collect tax (administrative expense, possible negative impact on sales) outweigh the benefits of registering (eliminating any risk of liability for uncollected tax, past and future).

In any event, the decision should not be a knee jerk reaction, but should be based upon a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of the retailer, and reviewed by counsel for the retailer.  I will be assisting my clients in making such reasoned business decisions, informed by the relevant legal considerations.

Thoughts from the NEMOA Spring Conference: Perils for Vendors from Affiliate Endorsements

Today was Day 3 of the New England Mail Order Association Spring Conference in Boston. It was a great conference with lots of opportunities for benchmarking and networking. A number of industry gurus were present, including George Michie from The Rimm-Kaufman Group, who gave a great talk on paid search issues that this lawyer found compelling.

Marty Eisenstein and I moderated a round table discussion on emerging online affiliate issues. There was quite a bit of interest in new FTC guidelines regarding testimonials and endorsements. These new guidelines have the potential to impact seriously a number of business practices that are quite common among reputable online merchants.

Imagine if you will the following scenario: Acme Direct Marketing is an online seller of skin cream. Acme enters into an agreement with a third party to create a revenue-sharing affiliate network for the purpose of generating traffic to Acme's website. Affiliates enroll through the third party--perhaps Google. Many affiliates, if not all, are anonymous as far as Acme is concerned. They are paid each month based upon the traffic that they drive to Acme's website. Traffic is measured by the third party, who bills Acme for traffic generated each month. I am guessing that this scenario sounds quite familiar to many online merchants--in fact almost all online merchants engage in some variation of this business practice.

Now assume that one such affiliate (or maybe several) includes content on its website for the purpose of attracting attention and referring traffic to the merchants for whom it is an affiliate. The material that it posts on its website is often not entirely accurate--after all, these folks know nothing about the cosmetics business, and even less about truth-in-advertising. Perhaps the affiliate takes some liberties with the supposed benefits of Acme's product.

Under new FTC guidelines, Acme is responsible for false or misleading statements made by its affiliates. Moreover, the affiliate is obligated to disclose that it receives remuneration in exchange for sending traffic to Acme's website.

In many instances, the system for managing far flung affiliate networks is simply not designed to permit monitoring of these affiliate sites. In addition, early indications in the marketplace show that third party affiliate programs are not eager to assume any of the legal risks associated with these new guidelines.

Under the circumstances, responsible merchants need to be thinking about techniques for monitoring affiliate networks, and for securing contractual assurances that the affiliates will comply with the new rules.

“Amazon Affiliate Nexus” Statutes: A Business-Savvy Alternative

Tax and trade journals report about each new state that is considering adopting an “Amazon Affiliate Nexus” statute, patterned after the New York statute adopted in 2008. As of this writing, North Carolina and Rhode Island have each enacted a New York-type online affiliate nexus statute, and several other states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia are considering whether to adopt similar statutes. Should an online retailer discontinue its affiliate relationships in those states? Should the online retailer begin collecting and remitting sales and use tax in states with such statutes even where it has no physical presence? Should the online retailer challenge the statute in court by suing the state and disputing the constitutionality of the statute, as was done by Amazon.com and Overstock.com in New York? There are clearly problems with each approach. If the retailer elects to discontinue its online affiliate relationships, the retailer may hurt its business. Besides, the retailer may not have identified all of its affiliates, each of which contributes to a presumption of nexus under the statute, and thus may face a risk of nexus in any event. On the other hand, a retailer’s collection of the sales and use tax means remitting the sales and use tax on all of its sales in the state, even if the affiliate-generated transactions are only a small percentage of its sales. Least attractive of all may be the litigation approach, which can take a long time to reach resolution and which has an uncertain outcome.

But, the use of an affiliate in a state with an affiliate nexus statute does not automatically create nexus. Rather, under each of the statutes already enacted and under those proposed in other states, use of an in-state affiliate creates a presumption of nexus that can be rebutted by a showing that the affiliates do not engage in traditional solicitation activities in the state. While each state provides a general description of the type of showing an online retailer needs to make in order to avoid a finding of nexus, it is only New York that provides an actual road map to rebut the finding of nexus. New York TSB-M-08(3.1)S provides a “safe harbor” method of rebutting the presumption of nexus when an out-of-state retailer uses New York affiliates. Thus, one alternative for a retailer to consider is what I call a “New York style” approach. Namely, the online retailer would provide in each agreement with its affiliates (the “Terms and Conditions”) that the affiliate agrees (covenants) not to engage in any traditional solicitation activities in the state that result in referring potential customers to the retailer. In addition, the agreement with the retailer should provide that the affiliate will provide to the retailer on an annual basis a certificate attesting to its satisfaction of the “no solicitation” clause and agreeing that the failure to submit such a certificate terminates the affiliate relationship and the payment of commissions or other compensation to the affiliate. While the implementation of an agreement along the foregoing lines will not automatically overcome the presumption in states other than New York, it is a proactive approach to rebutting the presumption they create and is worthy of serious consideration by an online marketer, depending upon its particular circumstances and in consultation with its counsel.