Forum Moderators: buckworks
Needless to say, the law will reduce legitimate email communications. Offshore spammers will benefit. The most offensive spam - drugs, porn, "enhancement" products -- will still be advertised and may benefit from the initially less cluttered in-boxes.
Are you concerned about the law (it may well be found unconstitutional)? How will you deal with it?
If you are really worried, I suggest you shoot off an email to your local state representative. There is a bill that has passed the Senate that is currently sitting on the house floor called CAN-SPAM. When you write, make sure you specify that you support the CAN-SPAM bill because there is another spam bill that is not as good sitting on the floor as well.
CAN-SPAM will make it clearly leagle for ISPs to go after spammers AND it nulifies any state spam laws.
We have a large list and no way to know who lives in Calif. We don't send spam and we honor removal requests.
Why are you concerned? Sounds to me like you have nothing to worry about?
TJ
Even if you do have records, do you have the time or money for lawyers to fly to California and defend the claim in a court of law? Many of the state laws make you guilty until proven innocent, which could really hurt your pocket book if someone unscrupulous decided to make a quick $1000.
This can occur because of an innocent, microscopic error. The only damage to the plaintiff is he has to hit 'delete' 60 times!
Can you hear the lawyers on L.A. running ads on TV? "Have You Ever Gotten an an Email? Phone Ronni Deutch and For Twenty Dollars -- Twenty Dollars-- We'll Represent You!"
Heck, a few Californians will buy computers just to get in on the new Gold Rush.
We send a monthly email newsletter
My experience is, if you have a valuable newsletter, people will opt-in. It's better to do it that way around rather than spam and give the option to opt-out.
It's still spam if it's unsolicited.
We run a newsletter, but we have a members option to opt-in. Almost all of them do.
It's a change, but it's a change for the better. I truly hope that more countries adopt this line.
TJ
Perhaps it would be smart to publish a paragraph from "Lady Chatterly's Lover" in each of our emails to give them Redeeming Social Value as consitutionally protected free speech.
Are there exceptions written into the law? Most well written laws carve out reasonable exceptions. Most laws anticipate the limits of business. Can you imagine the outcry in the California business community when this law goes into effect and starts hurting non-spamming California businesses?
Although I have not read the statute/law (yet) "reason suggests" that the law - while trying to be iron clad - has carved out exceptions and methods for dealing with issues such as those you raise. If not, once the local outcry starts, I would not be surprised to see the law amended.
Free speech and first amendment "tactics", such as inserting a little bit of literature, IMHO are a gimmick unlikely to work and may, in a real life lawsuit situation, only serve to annoy or inflame the fact finder. It would be seen as evidence that you were gaming the law/system and that you were conscious of your guilt, like a planned cover-up.
Jeff Esq.
P.S. This is not legal advice, just legal analysis, and may not apply to your State or situation.
[spamlaws.com...]
Notice that part about "pre-existing business relationships".
I thought I read an article the other day mentioning that said that people receiving email have to opt-in to both the emailer AND each advertiser mentioned in the email but I don't see that in the law (but of course I'm not a lawyer and I haven't read it very closely).
I never know what to make of it when someone makes an assertion stating "just how easy it all is" to execute a fraud.
Try criminal fraud prosecution? Civil fraud prosecution? Bad faith and malicious prosecution? Frivilous litigation statutes?
Try: If LawyerX does this the State Bar can pull his license? It doesn't take many complaints to trigger an investigation and voila - disbarred for fraudulent activities.
Are there scam artists? Yep, all over the place, except here. Will there be abuses? See "all over the place". Do you have to run off to a lawyer right out of the gate? How about a letter saying "Please send me a printed and electronic copy of the email with headers to establish the real source of the email. We do not spam anyone, this would confirmed by examining the headers, and there is not question that you are either entirely mistaken or are being made party to a fraud, innocently or otherwise. If it is the later be advised that we WILL travel to vigorously pursue all manner of civil and criminal remedies....."
Showed two separate incidents where women swore out complaints against officers for fondling them. The women didn't know the whole stop was taped. Both officers were shown to be extraordinarily polite and professional on tape and never touched the "ladies."
Of course, the program dealt with several Rodney King type incidents, as well.
Yes, it may be best to suspend mass emailing (maybe ALL emailing) to unknown recipients till this law is either superceded by fed legislation or fails in the courts.
----
On the plus side, I believe damages under the California law are capped at $1 million per incident:)
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives stood poised on Friday to outlaw most Internet spam and create a "do-not-spam" registry for those who do not wish to receive unsolicited junk e-mail."
Lawmakers faced additional pressure to put a national law into place after California passed a tough anti-spam bill earlier this year...
The House bill, which would override state anti-spam laws, would allow businesses to send unsolicited e-mail to Internet users until they are asked to stop
The bill also authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to set up a "Do Not Spam" registry of Internet users who wish to receive no unsolicited e-mail at all, similar to the Federal Trade Commission's popular "Do Not Call" list."
-------------------
Sure beats the California law.
those frivolous joys of Inbox(125) mails
those frivolous joys of Inbox(125) mails
well who could resist, when half of them
want your bod, and the other half want
to make your bod even better :)
False accustations?
I never know what to make of it when someone makes an assertion stating "just how easy it all is" to execute a fraud.Try criminal fraud prosecution? Civil fraud prosecution? Bad faith and malicious prosecution? Frivilous litigation statutes?
Try: If LawyerX does this the State Bar can pull his license? It doesn't take many complaints to trigger an investigation and voila - disbarred for fraudulent activities.
Are there scam artists? Yep, all over the place, except here. Will there be abuses? See "all over the place". Do you have to run off to a lawyer right out of the gate? How about a letter saying "Please send me a printed and electronic copy of the email with headers to establish the real source of the email. We do not spam anyone, this would confirmed by examining the headers, and there is not question that you are either entirely mistaken or are being made party to a fraud, innocently or otherwise. If it is the later be advised that we WILL travel to vigorously pursue all manner of civil and criminal remedies....."
The problem is that it is almost impossible to win a ruling of malicious prosecution in most states the way they are written. If they produce your email in court, that is enough to put the case into the catagory of a possible case. It can still be totally unwinable case, but still allowed to proceed. As someone who got drug into a lawsuit because the other party's lawyers told their client to "include anyone that you can think of that has any relationship or knoweledge of the incident" I can tell you it is expensive. I was quickly droped from the suit, but not before a few thousand dollars of my insurance comapanies money was spent. Those $300/hour lawyers sure can rack up the hours quickly just in the initial interview and response filing stages. And when you receive the court papers, you shouldn't send anything to the other party if your smart.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives stood poised on Friday to outlaw most Internet spam and create a "do-not-spam" registry for those who do not wish to receive unsolicited junk e-mail."
Oh yea, brilliant.
Now spammers outside the USA won't even have to spend $30
to get a list of valid email addresses. They can just
harvest the "do not spam" list and send them spam :-)
The House bill, which would override state anti-spam laws, would allow businesses to send unsolicited e-mail to Internet users until they are asked to stop
Woohooo! More brilliant ideas.
Let's force people to "confirm" their email address with
spammers (who will be located outside the USA's legal jurisdisction).
Clearly it would be unsolicited, and technically you are trying to market your site to them for the price of one link.
All it would take is a money hungry webmaster and an opportunistic lawyer and you'd have a plane ticket to the defendant's seat.
money hungry webmaster and an opportunistic lawyer
Ah but what are the chances of finding those two things...
Oh wait... Nevermind. I'd stop sending link requests if I were you ;)
Thank goodness. I was worried it might cost some serious money!
