Spam Laws Explained; Suespammers.org Founder On Existing and Proposed Email Laws
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 27, 2001--In response to public confusion surrounding laws regulating "spam," and the House Commerce Committee's expected Wednesday vote on HR718 (see below), The Suespammers Project's Founder and Administrator Tom Geller issued the following clarifications. Further information is available at suespammers.org.
Despite several attempts at legislation, there are currently no U.S. Federal laws that explicitly forbid the sending of unsolicited commercial email (UCE) or unsolicited bulk email (UBE), both of which are commonly known as 'spam.'
In the 107th Congress, three bills are being debated. In order of introduction, they are:
-- The Wireless Telephone Spam Protection Act (HR113), introduced
by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ): opt-in.
-- The Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001
(originally HR95, now HR718), introduced by Reps. Gene Green
(D-TX) and Heather Wilson (R-NM): opt-out, protects equipment
owners' rights to "opt out" their resources from processing
spam (via Section 5(b)).
-- The Anti-Spamming Act of 2001 (HR1017), introduced by Bob
Goodlatte (R-VA): opt-out, does not protect equipment
owners' rights to "opt out" their resources from processing
spam.
In addition, seventeen U.S. states already have antispam laws on the books. However, these have not been widely tested in courts.
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Italy have national laws that require senders to have "opt-in" permission from recipients (see below). In addition, the European Union is considering antispam regulation that would affect its member countries.
The debate
Legislation varies mostly in the following areas:
-- "Opt-in" vs. "out-out." "Opt-in" laws outlaw spam: "Opt-out"
laws require spam recipients to proactively tell spam senders
to stop. Polled email recipients overwhelmingly favor "opt-in"
laws; however, most U.S. state laws are on the "opt-out"
model.
-- Whether enhanced legal protection is given to equipment
owners, allowing them to set policies about how their property
can be used (i.e. "opt out" from having to process spam and
bear the cost it involves). The two main spam bills now in
Congress differ in this regard: Section 5(b) of HR718 supports
this property right, while HR1017 does not.
-- Who can sue. Most laws allow both equipment owners (whose
resources are used) and end recipients to sue.
-- Antiforgery provisions. Most antispam laws emphasize that
senders cannot falsify their identities or alter routing
information to disguise a message's origin.
-- Attempts to outlaw "spamware." Illegalizes possession and/or
use of software designed to send spam. This uncommon clause
(found in HR1178) is highly controversial, as definitions of
"spamware" have inevitably described popular programs usually
used for legal purposes.
-- Content provisions. A minority of spam laws describe what sort
of content is forbidden.
-- Labeling. Some laws permit unsolicited commercial email if
it's labeled as such. Such laws may run afoul of provisions
barring "compelled speech."
According to a recent study by the European Union, spam costs recipients over nine billion dollars per year. However, there have been only a few dozen cases against spammers since Arkow v. CompuServe in 1995, possibly because of the lack of strong antispam laws. Plaintiffs have thus far relied on existing Federal and State laws to charge spammers with:
-- Unauthorized use of resources
-- Forgery
-- Impersonation
-- Trespass
-- Fraud
-- Computer crime
-- Trademark infringement
-- Illegal telecommunications solicitation
About The Suespammers Project
The Suespammers Project provides a legal resource to help recipients recover from damages caused by unsolicited email, commonly known as "spam." Its Web site (at suespammers.org) contains the texts of relevant laws, tactics for their use, case records, legislation news, commentary, and an active mailing list for discussions. It's run by Tom Geller, a non-lawyer based in San Francisco.
Note to Editors: All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. The text above is not intended as, and should not be considered, legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction.
CONTACT:
Bandwidth P.R., for The Suespammers Project
Tracy Kronzak, 415/552-2557
suespammers@bandwidthpr.com
KEYWORD: CALIFORNIA
BW0454 MAR 27,2001
11:33 PACIFIC
14:33 EASTERN |
