Overview of CAN-SPAM Act.

1. Privacy Concerns in
Marketing and Commercial
Communications – Part 1
Bennet Kelley
Internet Law Center
bkelley@InternetLaw
bkelley@InternetLawCenter.net
LawCenter.net
We Know the Internet

2. In the Beginning . . .

3. There was California . . .
“We are saying that unsolicited e-mail cannot be sent
and there are no loopholes . . . We don't differentiate
between Disney and Viagra.
If you go out and rent a list of e-mail addresses, by
definition you are not a legitimate business. You are
the person we are trying to stop.”
Former California State Senator Kevin Murray
Author of SB 186

4. 84 days later . . .
President George W. Bush signing the CAN-SPAM Act (Dec. 16, 2003).
Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act
on-

5. CAN-SPAM Act of 2003
CAN-SPAM IS . . . CAN-SPAM DOES NOT . . .
• anti-
An anti-fraud and disclosure • “Can Spam” – except for wireless spam
statute
• Include a “Do Not Email Registry”
• Applies to an email where the
“primary purpose” is commercial
advertisement or promotion of a • Impose an “ADV” labeling requirement
product or service
• Create a general private right of action
• Applicable to bulk and single
emails • Generate stimulating cocktail party
conversations

6. Regulatory Timeline
2004: FTC Final Rule on Adult Labeling
FCC CAN-SPAM Rules
2005: FTC (1) Final Rule on Primary Purpose of Email; and
(2) Proposed Discretionary Rules
2006:
2006
2007:
2008: FTC Final Discretionary Rules

7. Determining When
CAN-SPAM Applies

8. CAN-
CAN-SPAMENCLATURE
SENDER -- means a person who initiates a
commercial e-mail and whose product, service,
or Internet web site is advertised or promoted
by the message.
INITIATE -- means to originate or transmit, or
procure the origination or transmission of, such
an e-mail message.
PROCURE -- means intentionally to pay or
induce another person to initiate the message
on one's behalf, while knowingly or consciously
avoiding knowing the extent to which that
person intends to comply with this Act.

9. CAN-SPAM Principal Requirements

10. From Line
FTC: must give the recipient enough
information to know who is sending the
message
Not deceptive to use multiple domains
Kleffman v. Vonage Holding Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2007).
Not misleading to use non-corporate address
where domain may be checked using “Who
Is”
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc. (W.D. Wash. 2007)
Fake address can get you in the dog house.

11. Designated Sender Rule
Must Be a Sender
• Name must be in the “From” Line CAN-
Under CAN-SPAM
• Must be Responsible for CAN-SPAM Cannot designate
compliance Non-
Non-Sender
• Dropped requirement that Designated
Sender be in control of the content or the
mailing list used

12. 12

13. Subject Lines
• Senate Report
– test is whether the person initiating the message knows
that the subject heading would be likely to mislead a
reasonable recipient about a material fact regarding the
content or subject matter of the message
• “New MySpace Phone” subject line misleads consumers
by creating false sense of sponsorship by MySpace.
– MySpace, Inc. v. The Globe.com, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2007)
• “Free Gift” subject lines violate CAN-SPAM
– FTC v. Adteractive, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2007)

14. Opt-Out Mechanism
• Opt-Out Basics
– May offer options, but total opt-out must be
opt-
one of them
– 10 days to remove
– No further use of email address after opt-out
opt-
– Separate Business Units:
Opt- opt-
Opt-out for Saab not opt-out for all of GM
• Discretionary Regs
– Cannot impose any conditions on opt-out
opt-
requests (e.g, fee or provide information)

15. CAN-SPAM Plaintiffs
No Consumer Private Right of Action
FTC & State AGs
Internet Access Service Provider (IASP)
Adversely Effected by Violation
Must demonstrate substantial harm
Civil Penalties
$25 – $250 per email
$2 million maximum
Damage Adjustments
Treble damages if willful
Reduction if violation occurred despite
commercially reasonable efforts to maintain
compliance”
15

16. CAN-SPAMIGATORS
Faux ISPs Established to Prosecute
CAN-SPAM Actions
Small, free service can qualify
Hypertouch v. Kennedy-Western University, 2006 WL 648688 (N.D. Cal. 2006)
But must demonstrate substantial
harm
- e.g., bandwidth, hardware, connectivity,
overhead, staffing or equipment costs
Asis Internet Services, v. Optin Global, Inc., 2008 WL 1902217 (N.D. Cal. March
27, 2008 )

17. Sender Liability
FTC unsuccessful in seeking strict
liability
Advertiser liable if “actual knowledge,
or by consciously avoiding knowing”
about affiliate violations
Strict anti-spam policies and policing of affiliates
defeated allegation of intent.
Hypertouch v. Kennedy-Western University, 2006 WL 648688 (N.D. Cal. 2006)
– No duty to investigate
Asis Internet Services, v. Optin Global, Inc., 2008 WL 1902217 (N.D. Cal. March 27, 2008 )

18. CAN-SPAM PREEMPTS ALL
STATE REGULATION OF
EMAIL EXCEPT STATE LAWS
• Regulating falsity or deception in
email
• Not specific to email, including
State trespass, contract, or tort law;
or
• Other State laws to the extent that
those laws relate to acts of fraud or
computer crime

19. Rulings On State Spam
Regulation
• Misrepresentation must be
material
Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc. (4th Cir. 2006).
• States cannot dictate form of
from line
Kleffman v. Vonage Holding Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2007); Gordon v.
Virtumundo, Inc.(W.D. Wash. 2007).
• Courts split on whether state
regulation must be based on
traditional notions of fraud
• Yes. ASIS Internet Service v. Optin Global, Inc. (N.D. Cal.
2008); Hypertouch v. ValueClick, (LA Super. Ct. May 4, 2009).
• No. ASIS Internet Service v. Vista Print (N.D.Cal. 2009).
• First Amendment requires
that it not impinge non-
commercial email
Virginia v. Jaynes (Va. 2008).

20. TOP 5 TIPS
#1 – Always
assume CAN-SPAM applies
#2 – The Grandmother Rule
#3 – The Hand Grenade Rule
#4 -The Academy Rule
#5 – The Einstein-Dilbert Conundrum

21. Selected Cases: CAN-SPAM Act
CAN-
Advertiser Liability
ASIS Internet Services, v. Optin Global, Inc., 2008 WL
Inc.,
1902217 (N.D. Cal. March 27, 2008 )
Hypertouch v. Kennedy-Western University, 2006 WL
Kennedy- University,
648688 (N.D. Cal. 2006)
US v. Cyberheat, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15448 (N.D. Ariz.
Cyberheat,
2007)
US v. Implulse Marketing, No. CV05-1285RSL (W.D.
Marketing, CV05-
Wash. June 8, 2007)
From and Subject Lines
FTC v. Adteractive, Inc., No. Case No. CV-07-5940 SI
Adteractive, Inc., CV-07-
(C.D. Cal. 2007)
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., Case No. 06-0204-JCC (W.D.
Virtumundo, Inc., 06-0204-
Wash. May 15, 2007)
Kleffman v. Vonage Holding Corp., Case No. CV 07-
Corp., 07-
2406GAFJWJX (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2007)
MySpace, Inc. v. The Globe.com, Inc. No. CV 06-3391-
06-3391-
RGK (JCx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2007)
(JCx)

22. CAN-
CAN-SPAM Cases Pt 2
Preemption
Asis Internet Services, v. Optin Global, Inc., 2008 WL 1902217 (N.D. Cal.
March 27, 2008 )
Asis Internet Services v. VistaPrint USA, Inc., No. C 08-5261-SBA (N.D.
Cal. May 5, 2009)
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Shurtleff, No. 2:05CV949DAK, 2007 U.S.
Dist LEXIS 21556 (D. Utah Mar. 23, 2007)
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., Case No. 06-0204-JCC (W.D. Wash. May
15, 2007)
Hypertouch, Inc. v. ValueClick, Inc., L.A. Super. Ct. No. C081000 (May
4, 2009).
Kleffman v. Vonage Holding Corp., Case No. CV 07-2406GAFJWJX
(C.D. Cal. May 23, 2007)
Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc., 469 F.3d 348 (4th
Cir. 2006)
Virginia v. Jaynes, 666 S.E.2d 303 (Va. 2008).

23. Bennet Kelley
Bennet Kelley founded the Internet Law Center
in 2007 after a decade of activity in many of the
hottest internet issues including behavioral
targeting, cyber squatting, internet marketing
and promotions, net neutrality, privacy, spam
and spyware. Prior to launching the Internet
Law Center, Bennet worked in-house with
companies such as ETM Entertainment Network,
SpeedyClick.com, Hi-Speed Media and
ValueClick.
bkelley@internetlawcenter.net
Bennet is Co-Vice Chair of the California Bar's
Cyberspace Committee and has been a regular
contributor to the Journal of Internet Law.

24. Internet Law Center
The Internet Law Center is dedicated to helping businesses
navigate the evolving legal standards for today's digital
economy, while also contributing to the development of the
policies of tomorrow. The firm serves a diverse client base
that includes startups and public companies both online and
offline across North America.
The professionals of the Internet Law Center possess years of
practical experience as both lawyers and entrepreneurs with
internet companies and have played a leading role in shaping
Internet law and policy. This unprecedented combination of
Santa Monica business, legal and policy experience not only makes the
(310) 452-0401 Internet Law Center uniquely qualified to provide the
professional advice needed to address emerging issues of
Washington, D.C. internet law in an uncertain economy, but also enables us to
(202)689-5660 provide practical solutions to brick and mortar and online
businesses alike.
Columbia, SC The Internet Law Center is based in Santa Monica but also has
(803) 727-0154 a presence in Washington, D.C. and Columbia, S.C. The
firm’s e-newsletter, Monday Memo, was named one of the top
100 Internet Law resources and has been nominated for the
www.InternetLawCenter.net
Los Angeles Press Club’s Southern California Journalism
Award for best In-house or corporate publication.