CAN-SPAM is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Because customers are only too happy to stop emails from companies that don`t meet the standardized requirements of the law, they can finally keep their inboxes spam-free according to the provisions of the law. They are just as concerned about their cybersecurity apparatus as any company is about theirs. Think about it, what would your company do if there was the slightest hint of a cyberattack? CAN-SPAM also confirms recipients` privilege to reject business emails at will and imposes serious consequences in cases where a company breaks the rules. The law required the FTC to report to Congress within 24 months of the bill going into effect. [5] No changes were recommended. In addition, the FTC must adopt rules to protect consumers from unwanted cell phone spam. 20. In December 2005, the FTC reported that spam volumes had begun to stabilize and consumer inboxes had declined due to improved anti-spam technologies.

A significant decrease in sexually explicit emails has also been reported. [6] [CAN-SPAM] allowed us not only to help spam, but also spammers. Our actions today make it clear that CAN-SPAM is alive – and we`re using it to give the boot to hardcore outlaw spammers. Using automated means of registering multiple email accounts from which spam is sent exacerbates other violations. It prohibits sending sexual spam without the “SEXUALLY EXPLICIT” label later established by the FTC. This label replaced the similar status marking requirements of “ADV:ADLT” or “ADLT”. The Department of Justice stated that the CAN-SPAM Act imposes strict liability on producers such as Impulse Media for the actions of their independent non-agent affiliates. However, both courts that considered this argument rejected the DOJ`s request. [57] [58] In March 2008, the remaining defendant, Impulse Media Group, went to court.

In the lawsuit, it was found that IMG`s affiliate agreement specifically prohibits mass spam, and if an affiliate violates that agreement, they will be terminated from the program. In fact, several subsidiaries had been terminated for precisely this reason. After a 2 1/2 days trial, the jury retired to decide whether Impulse Media should be held liable for the bad actions of its subsidiaries. Three and a half hours later, the jury returned with a verdict that IMG was not responsible and that the emails were the partners` fault. [59] CAN-SPAM, a direct response to the growing number of spam complaints,[7] defines a “commercial electronic message” as “any electronic message the primary purpose of which is the commercial promotion or promotion of a commercial product or service (including the content of an Internet website operated for commercial purposes).” It does not apply to “transactional or relational messages”. The FTC issued final rules[8] (16 CFR 316) on December 16, 2004, clarifying the term “primary purpose.” Previous state laws used bulk (a threshold), (commercial) or unsolicited content to define spam. The explicit limitation of the law to commercial email is widely perceived by the industry as an exception of purely political and religious email to its specific requirements.[9][10] These non-commercial messages also enjoy stronger protection under the First Amendment, as shown by Jaynes v. Commonwealth. [11] Since late 2006, CAN-SPAM has been virtually ignored by spammers.

A review of spam levels conducted in October 2006 estimated that 75% of all e-mail messages were spam, and the number of spam that complied with the requirements of the Act was estimated at 0.27% of all spam. In 2010, approximately 90% of emails were spam. [39] [40] Advertising organizations such as the Data & Marketing Association (DMA) have attempted to weaken the implementation of the law in various ways. These include extending the withdrawal recognition period from 10 business days to 31 calendar days, limiting the validity of withdrawal requests to a maximum of two to three years, and eliminating rewards for those who help the Federal Trade Commission enforce the law. [30] The DMA also objected to the provisions requiring the subject line of spam to indicate that the message is an advertisement. [31] The McCain Amendment[25] subjects businesses promoted by spam to FTC sanctions and enforcement actions when they knew or should have known that their business was being favoured by the use of spam. This change was intended to fill a loophole that allowed affiliate program operators to allow spammers to abuse their programs and encouraged these companies to help the FTC identify these spammers. Those who oppose spam greeted the new law with dismay and disappointment, almost immediately calling it the “You Can Spam” law.

[27] [28] Internet activists working to stop spam said the law would not prevent spam — in fact, it seemed to endorse the practice at the federal level, and there were fears that spam would increase because of the law. CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email) said: “The Spam Act 2003 is an example of one of many anti-spam laws. The CAN-SPAM backronym is derived from the full name of the law: Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act of 2003. He plays with the word “canning,” as is common in the usual term for unsolicited emails of this type. The bill was supported in Congress by Senators Conrad Burns and Ron Wyden. 29. In April 2004, the U.S. government filed the first criminal and civil charges under the Act. The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan filed a criminal complaint and the FTC filed a civil lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois. The defendants were a firm, Phoenix Avatar, and four partners: Daniel J. Lin, James J.

Lin, Mark M. Sadek and Christopher Chung of West Bloomfield, Michigan. The defendants were accused of sending hundreds of thousands of spam emails promoting a “diet patch” and “hormonal products.” The FTC said these products were virtually worthless. Authorities said they faced up to five years in prison under the anti-spam law and up to 20 years in prison under U.S. mail fraud laws. Subsequent amendments amended the original CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 by (1) adding a definition of “person”; (2) change of term “consignor”; (3) Clarification that a sender can comply with the law by inserting a post office box or private mailbox; and (4) clarification that a recipient may not be required to submit a valid takedown request, pay a fee, provide information other than their email address and opt-out preferences, or take any action other than sending a reply email or visiting a single page on a website.