Spam Law

Let's talk CAN SPAM

Earlier this week I posted about the increased amount of B2B spam I’m receiving. One message is not a huge deal and I just delete and move on. But many folks are using marketing automation to send a series of emails. These emails often violate CAN SPAM in one way or another.
This has been the law for 13 years now, I find it difficult to believe marketers are still unaware of what it says. But, for the sake of argument, let’s talk about CAN SPAM.

3 new CAN SPAM cases

Xmission, a Utah ISP, has filed suit against 3 companies alleging violations of CAN SPAM. The cases were filed in the Utah District Court in April and June. I’ve downloaded some of the documents and complaints and they are now in RECAP. I’ve also included the complaints here (and the links from here on out are almost all .pdfs of the court documents).
Xmission v. Adknowledge (Case 2:15-cv-00277).
Xmission v. Clickbooth (Case 2:15-cv-00420).
Xmission v. Thompson and Company (Case 2:15-cv-00385).
In all the cases Xmission is alleging similar violations of CAN SPAM.
Falsified header information: part 1
Xmission asserts that the domains in the headers were spoofed, unregistered or belonged to an unrelated 3rd party. One of the complaints listed subject lines of the emails sent, so I dug through my spam folder for similar emails. I found a few examples of what I suspect are the spams mentioned in the suit.

Spammer prosecuted in New Zealand

Today (well, actually tomorrow, but only because New Zealand is on the other side of the date line) the NZ Department of Internal Affairs added a 3rd statement of claim against Brendan Battles and IMG Marketing. This third claim brings the total possible fines to $2.1 million.
Brendan is a long term spammer, who used to be in the US and moved to New Zealand in 2006. His presence in Auckland was noticed by Computerworld when a number of editors and staffers were spammed. When contacted by the paper, Brendan denied being involved in the spam and denied being the same Brendan Battles.
New Zealand anti-spam law went into effect in September 2007. The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 prohibits any unsolicited commercial email messages with a New Zealand connection, defined as messages sent to, from or within New Zealand. It also prohibits address harvesting.
The Internal Affairs department also appears to be investigating companies that purchased services from Brendan Battles.

Legal analysis of Hypertouch v. Valueclick

Venkat has an analysis of the Hypertouch v. Valueclick case and recent appeals court ruling.