06 June 2005
Spamming Outside the Box
Recently a publicist offered me a nice little scoop involving two of her clients, who planned to post a list of 10 U.S. advertisers that have been flouting the Can-Spam Act of 2003 by ignoring consumers' demands to unsubscribe. Instead of cutting down on spam, attempted delisting just generated more mounds of e-mail. Would I be interested?
Sure, I said. I hate spam as much as the next guy -- provided the next guy thinks spammers should be forced to visit every single person they have bombarded with junk e-mail and manually delete each ad. I also knew just how murky a world spam is, and how difficult it is to police, since nothing and no one is what it seems to be. After all, on the internet, just about everyone wears a mask, especially shameless hawkers trying to cram your inbox with come-ons for penile enhancements and lower mortgage rates.
First, the law: In addition to banning false or misleading advertisements (like putting fake messages in subject boxes to get around spam filters), the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act gives marketers 10 days to stop sending e-mail after a consumer opts out, with each violation subject to a fine of up to $11,000. It also puts the onus on the advertisers to make sure their ads are in compliance, since they are the ones who ultimately benefit from online marketing.
But with many spammers concealing their identities, the Federal Trade Commission has had a rough time enforcing the Can-Spam Act (prompting cynics to dub it the U-Can-Spam Act). Not only that, but many of the ads for modern American staples like porn, pills, casinos and software don't even originate from the Pfizers and Microsofts of the world. They come from offshore front companies peddling ostensibly pirated goods, online gambling sites based in the Caribbean or hard-to-police affiliate marketers who follow their own rules.
With the government sitting on the sidelines, individuals have begun to take action. For example, Hypertouch, a small, California-based internet service provider, filed an $11.7 million lawsuit against Kraft in April for spamming 8,500 unwanted Gevalia coffee ads at its customers, citing violations of federal and state antispam statutes. A month earlier Hypertouch hit BobVila.com with a similar suit.
And that's where Joshua Baer and Brandon Phillips, the ones who created the list of "Top Ten U.S. Unsubscribe Violators," come in. (The list was recently posted, so as to coincide with the publication of this column.) Baer, CEO of UnsubCentral, which helps companies manage e-mail opt-out lists, and Phillips, president of LashBack, which sells a toolbar that can be added to Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express that automatically unsubscribes the user from unwanted junk e-mail, say they did it because spam causes headaches for their customers.
Sure, I said. I hate spam as much as the next guy -- provided the next guy thinks spammers should be forced to visit every single person they have bombarded with junk e-mail and manually delete each ad. I also knew just how murky a world spam is, and how difficult it is to police, since nothing and no one is what it seems to be. After all, on the internet, just about everyone wears a mask, especially shameless hawkers trying to cram your inbox with come-ons for penile enhancements and lower mortgage rates.
First, the law: In addition to banning false or misleading advertisements (like putting fake messages in subject boxes to get around spam filters), the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act gives marketers 10 days to stop sending e-mail after a consumer opts out, with each violation subject to a fine of up to $11,000. It also puts the onus on the advertisers to make sure their ads are in compliance, since they are the ones who ultimately benefit from online marketing.
But with many spammers concealing their identities, the Federal Trade Commission has had a rough time enforcing the Can-Spam Act (prompting cynics to dub it the U-Can-Spam Act). Not only that, but many of the ads for modern American staples like porn, pills, casinos and software don't even originate from the Pfizers and Microsofts of the world. They come from offshore front companies peddling ostensibly pirated goods, online gambling sites based in the Caribbean or hard-to-police affiliate marketers who follow their own rules.
With the government sitting on the sidelines, individuals have begun to take action. For example, Hypertouch, a small, California-based internet service provider, filed an $11.7 million lawsuit against Kraft in April for spamming 8,500 unwanted Gevalia coffee ads at its customers, citing violations of federal and state antispam statutes. A month earlier Hypertouch hit BobVila.com with a similar suit.
And that's where Joshua Baer and Brandon Phillips, the ones who created the list of "Top Ten U.S. Unsubscribe Violators," come in. (The list was recently posted, so as to coincide with the publication of this column.) Baer, CEO of UnsubCentral, which helps companies manage e-mail opt-out lists, and Phillips, president of LashBack, which sells a toolbar that can be added to Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express that automatically unsubscribes the user from unwanted junk e-mail, say they did it because spam causes headaches for their customers.
# posted by vdodon @ 01:36 
