Preemption of State Spam Laws by the Federal Can-Spam Act

Unsolicited bulk commercial email is an increasing problem, and though many states have passed laws aimed at curbing its use and abuse, for several years the federal government took no action. In 2003 that changed when Congress passed the CAN-SPAM Act. Though the law contains many different restrictions on spam messages, including some restriction of nearly every type that states had adopted, the Act was widely criticized as weak. Many of the CAN-SPAM Act\u27s provisions are weaker than corresponding provisions of state law, and the Act preempts most state spam laws that would go farther, including two state laws that would have banned all spam. Despite these weaknesses, this Comment argues that when properly interpreted the CAN-SPAM Act leaves key state law provisions in force, and accordingly is stronger than many spam opponents first thought. First, the law explicitly preserves state laws to the extent that they prohibit falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto. Though Congress was primarily concerned with saving state consumer protection laws, this language can be applied much more broadly. Second, the law is silent on the question of state law enforcement methods. State enforcement can be, and frequently is, substantially stronger than federal enforcement, which is largely limited to actions by the federal government, internet service providers, and state agencies. The Comment concludes by arguing that this narrow interpretation of its preemption clause is most consistent with the CAN-SPAM Act\u27s twin policy goals. By limiting the substantive provisions states may adopt, the Act prevents states from enacting inconsistent laws and enforces a uniform national spam policy. At the same time, narrowly interpreting the preemption clause permits states to experiment within the limits of that policy, in hopes of finding the most effective set of spam regulations

Definition of Spam 2.0: New Spamming Boom

The most widely recognized form of spam is e-mail spam, however the term “spam” is used to describe similarabuses in other media and mediums. Spam 2.0 (or Web 2.0 Spam) is refereed to as spam content that is hosted on online Web 2.0 applications. In this paper: we provide a definition of Spam 2.0, identify and explain different entities within Spam 2.0, discuss new difficulties associated with Spam 2.0, outline its significance, and list possible countermeasure. The aim of this paper is to provide the reader with a complete understanding of this new form of spamming

The regulation of unsolicited electronic communications (SPAM) in South Africa : a comparative study

The practice of spamming (sending unsolicited electronic communications) has been dubbed “the scourge of the 21st century” affecting different stakeholders. This practice is also credited for not only disrupting electronic communications but also, it overloads electronic systems and creates unnecessary costs for those affected than the ones responsible for sending such communications. In trying to address this issue nations have implemented anti-spam laws to combat the scourge. South Africa not lagging behind, has put in place anti-spam provisions to deal with the scourge. The anti-spam provisions are scattered in pieces of legislation dealing with diverse issues including: consumer protection; direct marketing; credit laws; and electronic transactions and communications. In addition to these provisions, an Amendment Bill to one of these laws and two Bills covering cybercrimes and cyber-security issues have been published. In this thesis, a question is asked on whether the current fragmented anti-spam provisions are adequate in protecting consumers. Whether the overlaps between these pieces of legislation are competent to deal with the ever increasing threats on electronic communications at large. Finally, the question as to whether a multi-faceted approach, which includes a Model Law on spam would be a suitable starting point setting out requirements for the sending of unsolicited electronic communications can be sufficient in protecting consumers. And as spam is not only a national but also a global problem, South Africa needs to look at the option of entering into mutual agreements with other countries and organisations in order to combat spam at a global level.Mercantile LawLL. D