In the Beginning . . .
There was California . . . <ul><li>'We are saying that unsolicited e-mail cannot be sent and there are no loopholes . . . ...
84 Days Later C ontrolling the  A ssault of  N on- S olicited  P ornography  A nd  M arketing Act Public Law 108-187
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 <ul><li>CAN-SPAM  IS  . . . </li></ul><ul><li>An anti-fraud and disclosure statute </li></ul><ul><li>...
CAN-SPAM Principal Requirements From line must  identify initiator Subject line must not be deceptive.  Adult Messages mus...
<ul><li>FTC Discretionary Regs </li></ul><ul><li>CAN-SPAM Plaintiffs </li></ul><ul><li>State Law & Preemption </li></ul><u...
Regulatory Timeline <ul><li>2004:  FTC Final Rule on Adult Labeling </li></ul><ul><li>  FCC CAN-SPAM Rules </li></ul><ul><...
Discretionary Regs <ul><li>Definition of Valid Physical   Address </li></ul><ul><li>Accurately registered P.O. Box allowed...
<ul><li>Name must be in the “From” Line </li></ul><ul><li>Must be Responsible for CAN-SPAM compliance </li></ul><ul><li>Dr...
CAN-SPAM Plaintiffs <ul><li>FTC </li></ul><ul><li>State AGs </li></ul><ul><li>Internet Access Service Provider (IASP) </li...
Is the IASP Remedy a   Trojan Horse? <ul><li>Hypertouch v. Kennedy-Western University   </li></ul><ul><li>Small, free serv...
Is Gordon a Proper Plaintiff? <ul><li>Gordon v. Virtumundo   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Continued to use other people's e-mail ...
No! <ul><li>Not Plaintiff Congress had in mind – must demonstrate substantial harm  </li></ul><ul><li>Awards Defendant Att...
Subliminal Message #2 Golf is boring.  Let’s talk about spam .
<ul><li>CAN-SPAM PREEMPTS   ALL   STATE REGULATION OF EMAIL   EXCEPT   STATE LAWS </li></ul><ul><li>Regulating  falsity  o...
<ul><li>Misrepresentation must be material </li></ul><ul><li>States cannot dictate form of from line  </li></ul><ul><ul><l...
Preemption’s Back Door? <ul><li>Utah/Michigan  Child Registry Laws </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Makes sending prohibited email a ...
Lessons from the Beehive State Liabilities Exceed Income 2-1
“ Sender” Liability <ul><li>FTC unsuccessful in seeking strict liability </li></ul><ul><li>Advertiser liable if “actual kn...
AB 2950 <ul><li>Pushed by anti-spam activists who have filed over 100 suits </li></ul><ul><li>Wish list </li></ul><ul><ul>...
AB 2950 <ul><li>Pushed by anti-spam activists who have filed over 100 suits </li></ul><ul><li>Wish list </li></ul><ul><ul>...
AB 2950 <ul><li>Pushed by anti-spam activists who have filed over 100 suits </li></ul><ul><li>Wish list </li></ul><ul><ul>...
Cases <ul><li>Preemption </li></ul><ul><li>Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc ., 469 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2006) ...
Bennet Kelley Bennet Kelley is founder of the Internet Law Center in Santa Monica where he helps clients navigate the chal...
Future Presentations <ul><li>October 14 </li></ul><ul><li>Online Advertising’s Year of Living Dangerously , California Sta...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

CAN-SPAM at 5

931 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

CAN-SPAM at 5

  1. 2. In the Beginning . . .
  2. 3. There was California . . . <ul><li>'We are saying that unsolicited e-mail cannot be sent and there are no loopholes . . . We don't differentiate between Disney and Viagra. If you go out and rent a list of e-mail addresses, by definition you are not a legitimate business. You are the person we are trying to stop.” </li></ul><ul><li>Former California State Senator Kevin Murray </li></ul><ul><li>Author of SB 186 </li></ul>
  3. 4. 84 Days Later C ontrolling the A ssault of N on- S olicited P ornography A nd M arketing Act Public Law 108-187
  4. 5. CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 <ul><li>CAN-SPAM IS . . . </li></ul><ul><li>An anti-fraud and disclosure statute </li></ul><ul><li>Applies to an email where the “primary purpose” is commercial advertisement or promotion of a product or service </li></ul><ul><li>No volume requirement </li></ul><ul><li>CAN-SPAM DOES NOT . . . </li></ul><ul><li>“ Can Spam” – except for wireless spam </li></ul><ul><li>Include a “Do Not Email Registry” </li></ul><ul><li>Impose an “ADV” labeling requirement </li></ul><ul><li>Create a general private right of action </li></ul>
  5. 6. CAN-SPAM Principal Requirements From line must identify initiator Subject line must not be deceptive. Adult Messages must provide notice. Postal Address for Advertiser Requires Working Opt-Out Mechanism for Advertiser UCE must be identified as “advertisement ”
  6. 7. <ul><li>FTC Discretionary Regs </li></ul><ul><li>CAN-SPAM Plaintiffs </li></ul><ul><li>State Law & Preemption </li></ul><ul><li>Advertiser Liability </li></ul><ul><li>California Amendments </li></ul>Topics
  7. 8. Regulatory Timeline <ul><li>2004: FTC Final Rule on Adult Labeling </li></ul><ul><li> FCC CAN-SPAM Rules </li></ul><ul><li>2005: FTC (1) Final Rule on Primary Purpose of Email; and (2) Proposed Discretionary Rules </li></ul><ul><li>2006 : </li></ul><ul><li>2007: </li></ul><ul><li>2008: FTC Final Discretionary Rules </li></ul>
  8. 9. Discretionary Regs <ul><li>Definition of Valid Physical Address </li></ul><ul><li>Accurately registered P.O. Box allowed </li></ul><ul><li>Opt-Out Requests Conditions or Expiration </li></ul><ul><li>Cannot impose any conditions on opt-out requests </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(e.g, fee or provide information) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Abandons proposal to reduce processing time to 3 days </li></ul><ul><li>Rejects call for expiration period for opt-out requests </li></ul>
  9. 10. <ul><li>Name must be in the “From” Line </li></ul><ul><li>Must be Responsible for CAN-SPAM compliance </li></ul><ul><li>Dropped requirement that Designated Sender be in control of the content or the mailing list used </li></ul>Must Be a Sender Under CAN-SPAM Cannot designate Non-Sender Designated Sender Rule
  10. 11. CAN-SPAM Plaintiffs <ul><li>FTC </li></ul><ul><li>State AGs </li></ul><ul><li>Internet Access Service Provider (IASP) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Adversely Effected by Violation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>No Consumer Private Right of Action </li></ul>
  11. 12. Is the IASP Remedy a Trojan Horse? <ul><li>Hypertouch v. Kennedy-Western University </li></ul><ul><li>Small, free service can qualify . </li></ul><ul><li>Concern that Hypertouch is a professional plaintiff can only be addressed by Congress </li></ul><ul><li>Opens door to litigation by anti-spam activists as faux-IASPs </li></ul>Hypertouch and its principal have filed approx. 40 cases under CAN-SPAM and/or California law
  12. 13. Is Gordon a Proper Plaintiff? <ul><li>Gordon v. Virtumundo </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Continued to use other people's e-mail addresses to collect spam . . . for generating lawsuit-fueled revenue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No harm related to </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bandwidth </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hardware </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Internet connectivity, network integrity </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Overhead, staffing or equipment costs </li></ul></ul></ul>
  13. 14. No! <ul><li>Not Plaintiff Congress had in mind – must demonstrate substantial harm </li></ul><ul><li>Awards Defendant Attorneys’ Fees – suit “ill-motivated, unreasonable, and frivolous” </li></ul>Followed in Cal Federal Court ASIS Internet Services v. OPTIN Global (N.D. Cal. 2008)
  14. 15. Subliminal Message #2 Golf is boring. Let’s talk about spam .
  15. 16. <ul><li>CAN-SPAM PREEMPTS ALL STATE REGULATION OF EMAIL EXCEPT STATE LAWS </li></ul><ul><li>Regulating falsity or deception in email </li></ul><ul><li>Not specific to email, including State trespass , contract , or tort law ; or </li></ul><ul><li>Other State laws to the extent that those laws relate to acts of fraud or computer crime </li></ul>
  16. 17. <ul><li>Misrepresentation must be material </li></ul><ul><li>States cannot dictate form of from line </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cannot prohibit use of multiple domains. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not misleading to use non-corporate address where domain may be checked using “Who Is” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>State regulation must be based on traditional notions of fraud </li></ul><ul><li>First Amendment requires that it not impinge non-commercial email </li></ul>
  17. 18. Preemption’s Back Door? <ul><li>Utah/Michigan Child Registry Laws </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Makes sending prohibited email a “computer crime” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Shurtleff, Utah Federal Court refused to enjoin law finding it fell within exception for computer crime </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>DOJ filed brief supporting this position </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>New Colorado Spam Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Makes violation of CAN-SPAM a violation of state deceptive practices and computer fraud laws </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is this a backdoor to creating private right of action under CAN-SPAM? </li></ul></ul>
  18. 19. Lessons from the Beehive State Liabilities Exceed Income 2-1
  19. 20. “ Sender” Liability <ul><li>FTC unsuccessful in seeking strict liability </li></ul><ul><li>Advertiser liable if “actual knowledge, or by consciously avoiding knowing” about affiliate violations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hypertouch v. Kennedy-Western University S trict anti-spam policies and policing of affiliates defeated allegation of intent. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ASIS Internet Services v. Opt-In Global, Inc. No duty to investigate </li></ul></ul>
  20. 21. AB 2950 <ul><li>Pushed by anti-spam activists who have filed over 100 suits </li></ul><ul><li>Wish list </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Advertiser liability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prohibiting use of multiple domains </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tactics to evade email filters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expand Plaintiffs to include District & City Attorneys </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Venue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Restore Statute of Limitations to 3 Years </li></ul></ul>VETO
  21. 22. AB 2950 <ul><li>Pushed by anti-spam activists who have filed over 100 suits </li></ul><ul><li>Wish list </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expand Plaintiffs to include District & City Attorneys </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Venue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Restore Statute of Limitations to 3 Years </li></ul></ul>
  22. 23. AB 2950 <ul><li>Pushed by anti-spam activists who have filed over 100 suits </li></ul><ul><li>Wish list </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expand Plaintiffs to include District & City Attorneys </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Venue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Restore Statute of Limitations to 3 Years </li></ul></ul>VETO
  23. 24. Cases <ul><li>Preemption </li></ul><ul><li>Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc ., 469 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Shurtleff , No. 2:05CV949DAK, 2007 U.S. Dist LEXIS 21556 (D. Utah Mar. 23, 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Kleffman v. Vonage Holding Corp ., Case No. CV 07-2406GAFJWJX (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc ., Case No. 06-0204-JCC (W.D. Wash. May 15, 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Virginia v. Jaynes , No. 062388 (Va. September 12, 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>IASP Standing </li></ul><ul><li>ASIS Internet Services, v. Optin Global, Inc ., 2008 WL 1902217 (N.D. Cal. March 27, 2008 ) </li></ul><ul><li>Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc ., supra. </li></ul><ul><li>Hypertouch v. Kennedy-Western University , 2006 WL 648688 (N.D. Cal. 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>No Strict Liability </li></ul><ul><li>ASIS Internet Services , v. Optin Global, Inc., supra. </li></ul><ul><li>US v. Implulse Marketing , No. CV05-1285RSL (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>US v. Cyberheat , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15448 (N.D. Ariz. 2007) </li></ul>
  24. 25. Bennet Kelley Bennet Kelley is founder of the Internet Law Center in Santa Monica where he helps clients navigate the challenges of the digital economy. He has been active in many of the hottest Internet issues over the past decade including cyber squatting, internet marketing and promotions, online gambling, net neutrality, privacy and spam. Bennet will be Vice-Chair of the California State Bar's Cyberspace Committee and is a regular contributor to the Journal of Internet Law . Bennet worked in-house with companies such as ETM Entertainment Network, SpeedyClick.com and ValueClick prior to launching the Internet Law Center. The Internet Law Center’s newsletter, Monday Memo , recently was named one of the top 100 Internet Law resources. . Contact: Internet Law Center 100 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 950 Santa Monica, CA 90401 310-452-0401 [email_address] www.InternetLawCenter.net
  25. 26. Future Presentations <ul><li>October 14 </li></ul><ul><li>Online Advertising’s Year of Living Dangerously , California State Bar Cyberspace Committee (webinar) </li></ul><ul><li>November 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Email Compliance: Foundation of Reputation & Deliverability , Direct Marketing Association (New York) </li></ul><ul><li>November 21 </li></ul><ul><li>Affiliate & Direct Marketing , PMA Promotion Marketing Law Conference (Chicago) </li></ul>

×