Can Spam Act (USA) - Email Marketing

M

MarkStrobel3367

Member
Is the following requirement to the Can Spam Act (assuming that it is still a requirement) enforced:

'if the person knows or should have known that the recipient's address was obtained from an Internet website or proprietary online service that included a notice that the operator will not provide addresses for initiating unsolicited messages'

I understand that the FTC enforces the Can Spam Act. However, I cannot find this requirement anywhere on their site, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business.

I know that there are several versions of this law on the Internet. Also, the government more than likely edits the law over time. Should I just go by what the FTC states as the requirements on their site? Thanks.
 
chrishirst

chrishirst

Well-Known Member
Staff member
MarkStrobel3367 said:
'if the person knows or should have known that the recipient's address was obtained from an Internet website or proprietary online service that included a notice that the operator will not provide addresses for initiating unsolicited messages'
Click to expand...

The wording of this is more like someone paraphrasing or otherwise interpreting what the statute/law actually says.

MarkStrobel3367 said:
I know that there are several versions of this law on the Internet.
Click to expand...
There may well be, BUT there is only ONE version of the law that matters, other peoples interpretation or paraphrasing are NOT "the law". This, plus the later amendments and clarifications is the only version of the statute you should pay attention to.

Contrary to popular belief, words do not have 'meanings'. Words only have usages and the usage of any particular word may change dependent upon context and what information is being conveyed in the communication, this is why a statute or law will use precise language and include explanations of the usage of the words where the words may be ambiguous.

The "I'm hearing ..." postulation of 'fact' may serve to get a candidate elected to office but it cannot be used as a defence argument in a court of law.
 
M

MarkStrobel3367

Member
chrishirst said:
The wording of this is more like someone paraphrasing or otherwise interpreting what the statute/law actually says.

There may well be, BUT there is only ONE version of the law that matters, other peoples interpretation or paraphrasing are NOT "the law". This, plus the later amendments and clarifications is the only version of the statute you should pay attention to.

Contrary to popular belief, words do not have 'meanings'. Words only have usages and the usage of any particular word may change dependent upon context and what information is being conveyed in the communication, this is why a statute or law will use precise language and include explanations of the usage of the words where the words may be ambiguous.

The "I'm hearing ..." postulation of 'fact' may serve to get a candidate elected to office but it cannot be used as a defence argument in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response. I got the text from https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/877. One would think that this is the actual statute/law as it was found on congress.gov. However, last night, I found yet another version of this law. And yet, the FTC who enforces this law has another version on their site. Very confusing.
 
chrishirst

chrishirst

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Materials published on the Congress website are NOT the law, they are the bills as presented to the house for deliberation and consideration.

What later becomes the law is what follows after that process.
 
M

MarkStrobel3367

Member
chrishirst said:
Materials published on the Congress website are NOT the law, they are the bills as presented to the house for deliberation and consideration.

What later becomes the law is what follows after that process.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response. I found what might actually be the Can Spam Act of 2003, https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2007/11/canspam.pdf. This act was revised in 2008. This pdf document is on the ftc's site. I also found a Youtube video of a ftc lawyer explaining the can spam requirements,
.

Do you think that the best thing to do is to follow the advice of the ftc since they are the ones who enforce this law, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business?
 
chrishirst

chrishirst

Well-Known Member
Staff member
MarkStrobel3367 said:
Do you think that the best thing to do is to follow the advice of the ftc
Click to expand...
Absolutely, though just to clarify a minor point, the FTC are the people who are the arbiters of this law, because it is the judicial system that is the 'enforcer' of all the laws of the land.
 
M

MarkStrobel3367

Member
chrishirst said:
Absolutely, though just to clarify a minor point, the FTC are the people who are the arbiters of this law, because it is the judicial system that is the 'enforcer' of all the laws of the land.
Click to expand...

I have a related question for you regarding the Can Spam law: On https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business under number 4 from the ftc.gov states that all commercial ads must identify messages as ads. Yet, out of all the commercial ads sent to me from major retailers, none of them include text identifying them as an ad. What are your thoughts on this? Are all these retailers in non-compliance of the law? Thanks.
 
chrishirst

chrishirst

Well-Known Member
Staff member
The 'identified as' clause relates to third party, paid advertising that is displayed along with, or inserted into editorial content and are related to, or contextually based on the content material.
"Opted in" marketing emails that are nothing but adverts or promotional announcements are by their very nature "identified as adverts", it is only if the adverts may be interpreted or misidentified as independent editorial recommendations, rather than a 'sponsored' message or otherwise paid for ad.

'Retailers' such as Amazon, Ebay, Walmart etc. only need to identify third party advertiser messages as 'sponsored', because the promoter (Amazon, Ebay etc.) is being paid for displaying the message or image to their customers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top