The report gives an overview of CAN-SPAM (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act), how it is implemented, related legislation, and legal actions based on the act. The report also looks at the FTC rules on CAN-SPAM compliance and related state anti-spam laws.

CRS No. RL31953, May 14, 2008

From the report’s summary:

Proponents of CAN-SPAM have argued that consumers are most irritated by
fraudulent email, and that the law should reduce the volume of such email because
of the civil and criminal penalties included therein. Opponents counter that
consumers object to unsolicited commercial email, and since the law legitimizes
commercial email (as long as it conforms with the law’s provisions), consumers
actually may receive more, not fewer, UCE messages. Thus, whether or not “spam”
is reduced depends in part on whether it is defined as only fraudulent commercial
email, or all unsolicited commercial email. Many observers caution that consumers
should not expect any law to solve the spam problem — that consumer education and technological advancements also are needed.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 3rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm and is filed under CDT. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.