New CAN-Spam Rules - What They Mean to Retailers

[mandy]

I just stumbled onto the fact that the FTC recently announced some changes to the Can-Spam Act, or as I started calling it even before it was enacted, the "Yes, You Can Spam Act." Could it be that the FTC has come up with some fixes that will help? Well, no, I'm afraid not...

...another of the new rules takes the worst aspect of Can-Spam -- the fact that we are all expected to opt out from every spamming list using the opt-out procedure designated by the spammer -- and makes it even worse. In "scenarios where multiple marketers use a single e-mail message" to spam you, only one of the senders - the one in the From: field -- need be designated the official sender who is responsible for honoring opt-outs. That means the other "marketers" who used that spam message, not to mention the spamming service that actually provided the e-mail address list, don't need to honor opt-outs. So try as you might to get yourself off a list, the real spammer can just keep changing the designated sender in the From: field and legally keep on spamming you....

full article: http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/ar...es_yo.html

The FTC announcement:

FTC Approves New Rule Provision Under The CAN-SPAM Act

The Federal Trade Commission has approved four new rule provisions under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM or the Act). The provisions are intended to clarify the Act’s requirements. The provisions and the Commission’s Statement of Basis and Purpose (SBP) will be published in the Federal Register shortly.
The new rule provisions address four topics: (1) an e-mail recipient cannot be required to pay a fee, provide information other than his or her e-mail address and opt-out preferences, or take any steps other than sending a reply e-mail message or visiting a single Internet Web page to opt out of receiving future e-mail from a sender; (2) the definition of “sender” was modified to make it easier to determine which of multiple parties advertising in a single e-mail message is responsible for complying with the Act’s opt-out requirements; (3) a “sender” of commercial e-mail can include an accurately-registered post office box or private mailbox established under United States Postal Service regulations to satisfy the Act’s requirement that a commercial e-mail display a “valid physical postal address”; and (4) a definition of the term “person” was added to clarify that CAN-SPAM’s obligations are not limited to natural persons.

In addition, the SBP accompanying the final rule also addresses a number of topics that are not the subject of any new rule provisions. These include: CAN-SPAM’s definition of “transactional or relationship message”; the Commission’s decision not to alter the length of time a “sender” of commercial e-mail has to honor an opt-out request; the Commission’s determination not to designate additional “aggravated violations” under the Act; and the Commission’s views on how CAN-SPAM applies to forward-to-a-“friend” e-mail marketing campaigns, in which someone either receives a commercial e-mail message and forwards the e-mail to another person, or uses a Web-based mechanism to forward a link to or copy of a Web page to another person. The SBP explains that, as a general matter, if the seller offers something of value in exchange for forwarding a commercial message, the seller must comply with the Act’s requirements, such as honoring opt-out requests....

full FTC announcement: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/canspam.shtm

[mandy]

    * In the FTC’s accompanying Statement of Basis and Purpose (SBP), it also addressed topics that were not the subject of new rules, such as how the Act applies to various categories of “transactional or relationship messages,” as well as to forward-to-a-friend email campaigns.  The SBP explains that, as a general matter, if the seller offers something of value in exchange for forwarding a commercial message, the seller must comply with the Act’s requirements, such as making required disclosures and honoring opt-out requests.
    * The FTC did not issue new rules on other topics, such as shortening or extending the length of time a sender of commercial email has to honor an opt-out request – the time remains at 10 days.
    * The FTC also determined that most employer-to-employee e-mails are not “commercial” messages for the purposed of the Act...

full article: http://blog.shop.org/2008/06/20/can-spam...retailers/