In the latest attempt by a lawmaker to halt unsolicited email advertising, known as “spam,” a New Mexico congresswoman is proposing to create a national register of email addresses submitted by people who don’t want to receive Internet junk mail. And if the law proposed by Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican, is enacted, Internet users who have had their names on the Federal Communications Commission registry could sue the unsolicited email sender for $500 per incident in a local court.
Wilson would also require commercial email advertisements to have valid return addresses. The sender must also honor the recipient’s request to have his or her name removed from the advertiser’s email list.
Beyond Cash Donations: How New Forms of Giving Are Transforming Not-for-Profit Accounting
Evolving Funding Landscape for Not-for-Profits Not-for-profit organizations are being asked to do more with less,…
Learn More
Further, it would allow Internet Service Providers to prohibit Internet advertisers from transmitting their unsolicited emails to their customers – allowing the service providers to enforce their privacy policies legally. They would also be able to appeal to the FCC to enforce the matter.
A spokesman said the bill will likely be assigned to the House Commerce Committee, of which Wilson is a member.
But Wilson is hardly alone in her fight against spam. Several states, including California, Nevada, and Washington now have anti-spam laws, while other states are now considering them.
Wilson’s bill, in fact, is competing with a similar bill that U.S. Rep. Gary G. Miller, R-Calif., who proposed in June. His bill, which approaches the problem differently, is now before a subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee, said John Cusey, Miller’s press secretary.
Here is how unsolicited email advertising, spamming, works: An electronic robot that acts like a search engine combs the Web in search of email addresses, taking them from places like Web pages and chat rooms. Purveyors of unsolicited email use that information to form lists of email addresses. Then, they get an account from an Internet Service Provider – usually using cash or check – and begin mass mailing. Often, they are not shut down until the ISP becomes aware of what is happening, at which point they are usually shut down.
Experts say that while the cost to the sender of spam is low, it is extremely expensive for the Internet provider, since mass emails consume bandwidth. And of course, they irritate many of the providers’ customers.
The problem for ISPs, however, is that it is difficult for them to recognize these spammers up front, and it can be even more difficult to sue them afterwards. While many providers have anti-spam use policies, the only way for them to sue companies that violate them is to sue them under common law, a difficult path, especially for small providers with limited resources, said John Mozena, vice president and co-founder of the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, a virtual organization.
Mozena said unsolicited emails started to become a problem about three years ago, when commercial Web services began to take hold. He estimates that 10 percent of all email can now be considered spam. But he added that his organization is not against all forms of mass emailing, especially since many people sign up for email newsletters. It opposes unsolicited email only.
“It’s a very powerful marketing tool if it’s used intelligently and ethically by business; ISPs don’t mind solicited emails going to their users,” Mozena said.
Wilson’s bill calls for the FCC and consumers to fight the problem, with Internet users bringing lawsuits and the FCC cracking down on violators. “It puts the power in the hands of the users,” her spokesman said.
Miller would give most of the power to the service providers, allowing them to sue to enforce their anti-spam policies legally in court. Though some ISPs are already doing that, this law would make it easier for them to bring their cases.
“The concept is: It’s their property, and they should be able to put up a ‘no trespassing sign,'” Cusey said. “It clarifies that it really is their private property and quantifies the exact damages the would receive.”
Specifically, Miller would allow service providers to sue users who violate their unsolicited email policies for $50 per message, up to $25,000 per day.
Cusey said Miller modeled his federal bill after the California state law he drafted when he was a member of that state legislature. The California law went into effect Jan. 1.
The Miller bill would preempt state anti-spam laws when they conflict, which Cusey said is necessary because it would be too difficult for those involved with Internet commerce to know the regulations of 50 different unsolicited mail laws.
Both Wilson and Miller maintain that their bills do not interfere with First Amendment free speech provisions because their bills would give users and ISPs more control over what mail they receive, but would not prevent mass emailing altogether.
For example, Mozena said that companies that wish to send mass emails would be able to do so under the Miller bill by working with an ISP that does not have a policy against spam. Two percent of Internet users in a recent survey said they enjoy receiving unsolicited emails. If they do, they can choose an ISP that is friendly to spam, he said.
