In March, the California court made a new ruling about email sender identification that now has marketers across the U.S. scratching their heads, wondering how to modify their campaigns to stay out of the legal fire.
This new law is all about discouraging the sending of promotional emails that contain false or misrepresenting header information. It strictly demands that commercial email advertisements (in other words, email sent specifically to sell a product or advertise a service) must include a domain name which is registered to the sender in the "from" line of the email, or the name of the sender or marketer on whose behalf the email was sent.
First and foremost, California's spam law applies to any U.S.-based company sending email to consumers within California.
The "Golden State" has one of the most important anti-spam statutes in America, simply because historically it's been an area where consumers and the government have been highly active in enforcing the law.
All U.S. businesses need to be concerned about this spam law because, under the United States Supreme Court Guidelines, if you are advertising to somebody in California, then you are subject to their jurisdiction.
As a result, if you are sending email even to a single person living in California (whether you know they're located there or not) you may already be at risk.
Everyday companies that are doing online marketing will really need to be careful about sending their email campaigns only if they're compliant with both state law and federal law.
It takes a lot more than complying with the CAN-Spam Act if you want to be in full adherence with the various state-wide spam laws that are out there. In fact, part of the reason why the federal CAN-Spam Act was passed was merely to serve as a general standard and point of reference that's enforceable on a country-wide scale, because of the variances in state laws.
Which law rules then, you may ask?
Here's how it works:
Whenever spam complaints make it to court, the burden is on the sender of the email to show that everything they did was correct, in this case demonstrating not only compliance with California law, but U.S. federal law as well.
California State has long been known to enact statutes that are more stringent, more limiting, and more particular than the CAN-Spam national standard.
For instance, one of the major general differences is that CAN-Spam requires there to be an opt-out mechanism in every email and that the advertisers comply with opt-out requests within 10 business days. But in California, there is no demand for an opt-out mechanism, nor is there any rule that the recipient must actually opt-out.
This means that if somebody receives a commercial email that they didn't sign up for, they don't have to request to be removed from the sender's list. In fact, the recipient is free to wait and collect loads of emails, and then later sue the sender for a tidy sum of $1,000 per email.
So if you're an active bulk email marketer, these penalties can add up very quickly indeed.
While most business people may think that as long as they have an opt-out they're safe, in California, that's not true. Even if the advertiser can prove that they have mechanisms and procedures in place to prevent sending unsolicited emails and that the recipient was inboxed unintentionally or mistakenly, the penalty is still at least $100 per message.
And that's just the beginning of it: California also has other laws which apply to the body of the email. For example, if you are sending an email that says "you opted in" on date X, "using IP address" Y, and that information is incorrect, you'd be running afoul of the Consumers' Legal Remedies Act.
Another problem that often occurs is when somebody signs up to a mailing list using an email address that doesn't belong to them personally. And then, when the advertiser sends an eflyer to that email address, the individual who really owns it will actually not have opted in, and by Californian definition, it will count as a legally punishable, unsolicited commercial email.
Of course, if you manage your list subscriptions via a double opt-in mechanism where new sign-ups are emailed first to confirm their interest after submitting their contact details (which is not demanded by Can-Spam or California law), you should be able to steer clear of this hazard.
Not a People Connection member?
Wikus, the title of your post is, "How the new spam law affects email marketers" - what is the new spam law? In your post you cite Balsam v. Trancos which cites California Business and Professional Code 17529 which was signed in 2004. 2004 is not "new".A new ruling based on an old law doesn't make the law new. It might be a new application or ruling, but the law upon which it is based, California Business and Professional Code 17529, is not new. All of the links to opinions on Balsam v. Trancos will not change that.Because your post is titled and centered on the precption that there is a new California law (that assumably trumps CAN-SPAM) your post is misleading.
This post details with the findings surrounding a recent Californian court ruling, specifically referencing outcome of the the case of Daniel L. Balsam vs. Trancos Inc. - which wasfiled on 24 February 2012 and certified for publication.This post does not deal with prior spam law rulings, such as the better known 2004 statutes, referenced in the discourse.Please find below a useful references to proceed with your personal inquiry, including documentation by the judicial branch of California and a transcript of a broadcasted discussionbetween American legal experts that specifically outlines the difference between Federal Anti-Spam Laws and State Spam Laws, in their professional views.http://performinsider.com/2012/04/mailers-california-spam-law-makes-hiding-illegal/http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b4db9a99-dfe2-4615-8e58-bf900d0171d8http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A128485.DOChttp://www.allspammedup.com/2012/03/california-court-of-appeals-decision-against-spammer/http://performinsider.com/2012/03/false-headers-violate-california-law-says-court/http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/02/california_appe_2.htmhttp://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b4db9a99-dfe2-4615-8e58-bf900d0171d8http://tcattorney.typepad.com/techlaw/2012/02/internet-attorney-timothy-walton-discusses-state-spam-laws.html
I'm not sure where you're from, Wikus, but from where I sit in sunny Southern California and with 17 years in the email space, I can assure you that there aren't any new spam laws in California. Actually, the law that you're speaking of, California Business and Professional Code 17529 was passed in 2004; the same year as the CAN-SPAM Act, which, by the way, isn't a "standard" or suggestion but a Federal law.The CAN-SPAM, or as we used to call it the "you CAN-SPAM", Act came together because the patchwork of state laws beginning to take shape would have stifled marketing innovation and emerging technologies behind it. In other words, it's a Federal law that supersedes State laws. I think that Jong Cho, the assistant to Cyrus Wadia of Cooper White & Cooper may be a bit confused by the Federal law and State laws. And speaking of confusing, I think that your post, while I'm sure noble in its intent is somewhat misleading. A key give-away in the Cooper White & Cooper article is "but the California Supreme Court has applied the federal anti-SPAM law's definition" - translation = it was a CAN-SPAM case (obviously tried in California). A key give-away with your post is claiming a California state law signed into effect in 2004 (superseded by CAN-SPAM) is new.
Full Summit Calendar | Request Invite
1 The 5 types of terrible networkers
2 The most meaningless (and hilarious) job titles on LinkedIn
3 The top 4 consumer trends you need to know
4 The best social media campaigns of 2013
5 11 essential tools for link building