News: New York Judge Says Marketer Can't Make False "Opt-In" Claims

In a ruling against MonsterHut, an email marketing firm previously accused of spamming, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lottie E. Wilkins permanently enjoined MonsterHut and its principals from misrepresenting their email marketing lists as "opt-in." New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had brought suit against the company, claiming that it violated New York's consumer fraud laws by falsely claiming that consumers had "opted-in" to receive its emailings.

According to a statement from the Attorney General's office: "The court's decision not only supports the widely accepted definition of 'opt-in' it also holds that a company's misrepresentation of its address collection and sign-up policies, may subject it to liability and penalties under New York's deceptive practices statute."

This ruling is particularly interesting in that the court specifically considers the use of the term "opt-in" and requires that businesses be truthful in the way they represent their data. In the trial, MonsterHut claimed that it was using data identified as opt-in by the third-party providers from whom it acquired the email addresses. The court rejected this defense.

Over the years, one of the most disturbing trends in email marketing has been the fraudulent claims of spammers that their lists are opt-in. Because of this widespread practice, the definition of "opt-in" has become increasingly diluted. Even many mainstream online marketers refer to all email lists as "opt-in lists," in a generic way, regardless of how the data is collected.

What do you think about this court ruling? To share your thoughts, click the "Post Letter" link in the upper right column of this page.

Al Bredenberg

Publisher