FTC Protects Broadband Internet Access Users from Spam with CAN-SPAM Act

Spam is one of the unfortunate and seemingly unavoidable side effects of Internet access. Luckily, the FTC is protecting broadband Internet users against this annoying barrage of e-mails through legislation. Two spammers recently settled charges with the FTC that they sent commercial e-mails in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act.

Provisions of the CAN-SPAM Act

The CAN-SPAM Act (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act) of 2003 sets forward requirements that commercial e-mailers must follow to engage in online marketing campaigns, spells out punishment for those who do not follow the provisions of the Act, and gives recipients the right to request cessation of further online correspondence.

The main tenets of the law protect citizens from receiving misleading, unsolicited bulk e-mail without being able to remove themselves from the mailing list in question. First, it bans false or misleading header information that does not clearly indicate the originating domain name and e-mail address. Secondly, deceptive subject lines that do not clearly indicate the content of the e-mail are prohibited. The CAN-SPAM act requires that all commercial mailers give their recipients the ability to remove themselves from the mailing list and from all future correspondence from that particular spammer in the future. Finally, it requires that commercial e-mail must be identified as an advertisement, and the sender must include their physical mailing address. If a spammer violates any of these tenets, they may be subject to fines of up to $11,000 per violation.

FCC Settles with Spammers

The CAN-SPAM Act recently came into play while settling charges with the FTC for two large-scale spammers, Matthew Olson and Jennifer LeRoy of Washington State. The FTC brought a lawsuit against these two spammers in November as part of ongoing efforts to bring spammers using deceptive practices to justice, and consequently decreasing deceptive spam volume.

In particular, the FTC is targeting spammers who hijack others’ computers to send out large quantities of spam. Hijacking computers obscures the source of the message, which gives the e-mail a greater chance of breaking through spam filters and also marginally protects the spammers from action by the FTC. LeRoy and Olson’s spam also violated other tenets of the CAN-SPAM Act, including false “From” information, misleading subject lines, and failure to provide some way for the recipient to opt-out of future e-mails.

The two spammers were ordered to pay fines of $45,000, although this judgement has been suspended due to inability to pay. In addition, Olson and LeRoy have agreed to no further violations of the law. Clearly, the FTC is working to send a powerful message to spammers that they can, and will, be caught, even if they are using deceptive e-mailing practices.