It's not spam if you opted in...or is it?

by Lance K 7 replies
I cut & pasted this directly from the FTC site...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  • It prohibits deceptive subject lines. The subject line cannot mislead the recipient about the contents or subject matter of the message.
  • It requires that commercial email be identified as an advertisement and include the sender's valid physical postal address. Your message must contain clear and conspicuous notice that the message is an advertisement or solicitation and that the recipient can opt out of receiving more commercial email from you. It also must include your valid physical postal address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruh roh, Rorge. I guess the "you signed up so it isn't spam" argument may not be such an iron clad defense.
#main internet marketing discussion forum #inor #opted #spam
Avatar of Unregistered
  • Profile picture of the author Alex Sol
    My emails always have my real address...

    Deceptive subject lines? hmmmm
    Signature
    Alex Sol, Full time online marketer since 2007
    The Extra Paycheck Blog | Extra Paycheck Podcast
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[97813].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lance K
      Originally Posted by kiev View Post

      My emails always have my real address...

      Deceptive subject lines? hmmmm
      Yeah, the deceptive subject lines one is the one I was really referring to.

      And the "message must contain clear and conspicuous notice that the message is an advertisement or solicitation" part is what caught my eye in the second one. I don't really see too many people who aren't including a physical address.
      Signature
      "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
      ~ Zig Ziglar
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[97824].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Justin Jordan
    "I guess the "you signed up so it isn't spam" argument may not be such an iron clad defense."

    I think some crap that gets sent to list would qualify as spam under the general definition, but I believe the CAN SPAM bits you're quoting are specifically for unsolicited email.

    "A "transactional or relationship message" – email that facilitates an agreed-upon transaction or updates a customer in an existing business relationship – may not contain false or misleading routing information, but otherwise is exempt from most provisions of the CAN-SPAM Act."

    Is the bit that exempts people who have lists, probably, because the person you're sending to has entered into a relationship with you.

    On the other hand, I have been added to list after downloading a product and at no point was I ever informed I was going to be added to a mailing list. Obviously, I knew I'd be added to their list, but I kind of suspect this lack of disclosure might invalidate the exemption above, because I'm not actually soliciting anything.

    Not a lawyer, so I'm not sure. I do know that Amazon, for example, gave me the option of not getting their emails to begin with.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[97827].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lance K
      Good points, Justin. I was wondering how the deceptive subject line thing was getting through. It's still pretty vague though ("most provisions"). But at least there is room for interpretation as written.
      Signature
      "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
      ~ Zig Ziglar
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[97835].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Justin Jordan
        It's interesting, and you probably need to look up the actual bill and have it interpreted by a lawyer to be sure.

        I don't think that most of the deceptive emails you get from lists (or at least the emails I get from lists) is probably not the kind of deceptive they're talking about. I think they're aiming towards the sort of emails where they appear to be about, say, a new version of the bible and ened up being for Tibetan midget porn.

        The wikipedia entry goes into much greater detail, but it's wikipedia. This is the sort of thing wikipedia gets right, usually, but reader beware:

        CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[97857].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Lockwood
    What's your problem with Tibetan midget porn?

    Have you watched any, or are you just assuming you wouldn't enjoy it?

    BTW, the FTC page linked to above is dated April 2004.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[100248].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      BTW, the FTC page linked to above is dated April 2004.
      The US Constitution is dated July, 1776.

      As a general rule, American laws don't have expiration dates.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[100412].message }}
Avatar of Unregistered

Trending Topics