CAN-SPAM Law Enforcement
On February 16, 2004, Anthony Greco, 18, of Cheektowaga, New York, was the first person to be arrested under the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced in a closed session.
Within a few months, hundreds of lawsuits had been filed by an alliance of ISPs. Many of these efforts resulted in settlements; most are still pending. Though most defendants were "John Does," many spam operations, such as Scott Richter's, were known.
On May 13, 2008, Sanford Wallace, and his partner, Walter Rines, were found guilty of sending unsolicited advertisements for pornography and gambling websites to MySpace users when they failed to appear in court, and ordered to pay $230 million, the largest CAN-SPAM award to date.
The CAN-SPAM Act (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003) supercedes the various conflicting state laws for the regulation of email.
FTC Approves New Rule Provision Under The CAN-SPAM Act
For Release: May 12, 2008
The Federal Trade Commission has approved four new rule provisions under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM or the Act). The provisions are intended to clarify the Act's requirements. The provisions and the Commission's Statement of Basis and Purpose (SBP) will be published in the Federal Register shortly.
The new rule provisions address four topics: (1) an e-mail recipient cannot be required to pay a fee, provide information other than his or her e-mail address and opt-out preferences, or take any steps other than sending a reply e-mail message or visiting a single Internet Web page to opt out of receiving future e-mail from a sender; (2) the definition of "sender" was modified to make it easier to determine which of multiple parties advertising in a single e-mail message is responsible for complying with the Act's opt-out requirements; (3) a "sender" of commercial e-mail can include an accurately-registered post office box or private mailbox established under United States Postal Service regulations to satisfy the Act's requirement that a commercial e-mail display a "valid physical postal address"; and (4) a definition of the term "person" was added to clarify that CAN-SPAM's obligations are not limited to natural persons.
In addition, the SBP accompanying the final rule also addresses a number of topics that are not the subject of any new rule provisions. These include:
- CAN-SPAM's definition of "transactional or relationship message";
- the Commission's decision not to alter the length of time a "sender" of commercial e-mail has to honor an opt-out request;
- the Commission's determination not to designate additional "aggravated violations" under the Act;
- and the Commission's views on how CAN-SPAM applies to forward-to-a-"friend" e-mail marketing campaigns, in which someone either receives a commercial e-mail message and forwards the e-mail to another person, or uses a Web-based mechanism to forward a link to or copy of a Web page to another person. The SBP explains that, as a general matter, if the seller offers something of value in exchange for forwarding a commercial message, the seller must comply with the Act's requirements, such as honoring opt-out requests.
The new rule provisions and SBP are a follow-up to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on these and other CAN-SPAM topics that the Commission published on May 12, 2005 and March 11, 2004, respectively. The Commission received 152 comments and suggestions on the NPRM and 13,517 comments and suggestions on the ANPR from representatives of a broad spectrum of the online commerce industry, trade associations, individual consumers, and consumer and privacy advocates. The new rule provisions and SBP are based on these comments and suggestions as well as the Commission's law enforcement experience.
