2004 Case on Advertiser Liability for Spam
Fenn v. Redmond Venture, Inc., 2004 UT App 355 (Utah Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2004). I was digging through my stack and stumbled across this case from last year. It seems apropos to a running theme on this blog about…
FTC Cracks Down on Porn Spam
The FTC has brought enforcement actions against seven companies for violating failing to include the “SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT” label on emails where such labels are required under CAN-SPAM and the implementing FTC regulations (as well as other violations of CAN-SPAM). Four of…
Mistaken Judgments for Content Labeled Advertising
Last week I applauded the FTC for arguing against the mandatory labeling of commerical emails. In that post, I argued that the labels would increase the rate of erroneous judgments by recipients, because the recipients would mistakenly believe that the…
FTC Votes Against Mandatory Spam Labeling
The FTC has recommended against adopting a mandatory label for spam like “ADV.” The FTC concluded that recipients have better filtering mechanisms for law-abiding emailers and the law will have no effect against law-breaker emailers. I think this quote sums…
Hypertouch Inc. v. Kraft Foods Inc.–New CAN-SPAM Lawsuit
An Internet access provider has sued Kraft Foods under CAN-SPAM and the California anti-spam law. This case is a little unusual because, to date, most CAN-SPAM lawsuits have been against marginal marketers, in many cases who were expected to default….
2005 Pew Report on Spam
Pew has released its annual survey on recipient attitudes towards spam. The 2005 version shows that recipients are becoming adjusted to the spam influx. As the report says, recipients are “minding it less” and that the “worst case scenario—that spam…
Anti-Spoofing Protocol
A spammer makes unauthorized use of a company’s trademarks in an email promoting the purchase of goods/services. This isn’t a phishing email per se; it’s not trying to disgorge personal statistics for identity theft or outright theft (although it may…
Guilty Plea for Spimmer
Anthony Greco, allegedly the first person arrested for spim/instant message spam (but it was really just email), pleaded guilty for his deeds. Not clear exactly what crimes he was charged with—there were a number of good contenders.
“Spammers are criminals, plain and simple”
Ridiculous article in BBC lamenting that 1/3 of email users have responded to spam and 10% have bought products from spam. The article portrays this as “bad e-mail behaviour” because, as every anti-spam scaremonger is quick to assert, responding to…
More on Anti-Phishing Act of 2005
Leahy’s Anti-Phishing Act of 2005 (S. 472) is finally online. See my earlier post. I’m still slightly troubled by the inchoate nature of the crime, but its scienter requirement (“intent to carry on any activity which would be a Federal…