Spam litigation resulting from violations of the CAN-SPAM act can result in multi-million dollar civil judgments and criminal prosecutions. Businesses that send commercial emails for internet marketing need to be aware of the guidelines set forth by the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (“CAN-SPAM).
The FTC issued final rules (16 C.F.R. 316) clarifying the phrase “primary purpose” on December 16, 2004. Previous state laws had used bulk (a number threshold), content (commercial), or unsolicited to define spam. The explicit restriction of the law to commercial e-mails is widely considered by those in the industry to essentially exempt purely political and religious e-mail from its specific requirements. Such non-commercial messages also have stronger First Amendment protection from spam litigation, as shown in Jaynes v. Commonwealth.
California Anti-Spam Protections
A frequent tactic used by marketing agencies is to use FALSE names. A FALSE name is a fake name from an imaginary person that does not exist. This is done to lead a person reading the email to believe an actual person sent the email as an acquaintance, person they know or sent from a real person versus an automated system.
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5(a)(3) prohibits a subject line that would likely mislead recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message. These emails are also subject to statutory liquidated damages of $1,000 per email. Violators are also liable for actual damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.