CAN SPAM and the first amendement
From Venkat at Eric Goldman’s blog we find the federal court has rejected an attempt to claim spam was “protected anonymous speech.”
Related Posts
Legal analysis of Hypertouch v. Valueclick
- laura
- Jan 21, 2011
Venkat has an analysis of the Hypertouch v. Valueclick case and recent appeals court ruling.
Read MoreCAN SPAM preemption of CA law
- laura
- Jan 20, 2011
The California court of appeals returned a ruling yesterday in the Hypertouch v. ValueClick case. This is a case I haven’t talked about at all previously, but I think this ruling deserves a mention.
The short version is that Hypertouch sued Valueclick in 2008 under both CAN SPAM and the California anti-spam law. Eventually the judge in the case ruled that there was no clear evidence of fraud, therefore CAN SPAM preempted the California law.
Hypertouch appealed the case.
Yesterday the appeals court published their opinion and kicked the case back down to the lower court.
Buying Lists
- laura
- Jul 9, 2010
One of my email addresses at a client got spammed today offering to sell me appending services. I was going to post the email here and point out all of the problems in how he was advertising it, including violating CAN SPAM.
As I often do, I plugged his phone number into google, only to discover that my blog post from March about this spammer was the 2nd hit for that number. Well, go me.
I can report nothing has changed. He’s still violating CAN SPAM. He’s still claiming I have no right to post, share, spindle, mutilate or fold his spam. Well, in the interest in something, I thought I’d share the whole post this time. Just to warn folks from attempting to purchase services from appendleads.com (nice website, by the way).