The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee has sent to the Senate for debate the anti-spam bill S.630, known as the CAN-SPAM Act ("Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act").
CAN-SPAM requires email advertising to include a working return address, a physical address, and opt-out information, and also forbids misleading subject lines. Under CAN-SPAM, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) would be able to fine violators $10 per email message. ISPs would be able to sue spammers for damages.
Views: If marketers don't regulate themselves, someone else will
Consumers are receiving more and more email, and as the flood of spam increases, so will consumer demands for legal sanctions. Self-regulation by marketers could serve to head off restrictive legislation. Many businesses have seen the value of restraint and have implemented permission-based email marketing methods. However, I doubt whether these efforts will be enough. The real spammers are pretty slippery characters, and it's hard to see how a law like CAN-SPAM is going to do much to stop them.
What about you? Do you think a U.S. anti-spam law would help reduce spam? Would this be good or bad for marketers? Send us your comments by using the "Post Letter" link at the top of the left-hand column of this page.
Al Bredenberg
Publisher
EmailResults.com (http://www.emailresults.com)
