Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

CAN-SPAM Act of 2003: Enforcement by States

Read a random definition: cross

A quick definition of CAN-SPAM Act of 2003: Enforcement by States:

The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 is a law that helps stop spam emails. It says that state officials can take legal action against people who send spam emails that have false information, misleading subject lines, sexually explicit content, or don't let you unsubscribe. The state officials can ask for money to fix the problem and stop the spammer from doing it again. The government can also help the state officials.

A more thorough explanation:

The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 is a law that regulates commercial email messages and gives recipients the right to stop receiving them. Section 7(f) of the Act allows state attorneys general, officials, or agencies to take legal action on behalf of the citizens of their state to enforce certain provisions of the Act.

To bring a civil action, the state attorney general, official, or agency must have reason to believe that the interests of the residents of their state have been or are being threatened or adversely affected by a person who:

  1. Includes false or misleading information in a spam email
  2. Uses a deceptive subject line in a spam email
  3. Does not follow the legal requirements for emails containing sexually oriented material
  4. Does not allow recipients to opt-out of receiving spam

If the state's legal action is successful, they may be awarded injunctive relief, actual monetary damages, or statutory damages. The court may also award attorneys' fees to the state attorney general, official, or agency that brought the action. Federal regulators, such as the Federal Trade Commission, may also intervene in the legal action.

An example of a violation of the CAN-SPAM Act that a state attorney general could take legal action against is a company that sends out spam emails with false information in the "From" field, making it appear as if the email is from a different sender. This violates Section 5(a)(1) of the Act.

Another example is a company that sends out spam emails with a subject line that is misleading or deceptive, such as "You've won a prize!" when the recipient has not actually won anything. This violates Section 5(a)(2) of the Act.

A third example is a company that sends out emails containing sexually oriented material without following the legal requirements for such emails, such as including a warning label in the subject line. This violates Section 5(d) of the Act.

Finally, a company that does not provide a clear and easy way for recipients to opt-out of receiving future spam emails could be in violation of Sections 5(a)(3), (4), or (5) of the Act. For example, if a company requires recipients to log in to their account to unsubscribe or makes the unsubscribe link difficult to find, this could be a violation.

CAN-SPAM Act of 2003: Criminal Liability | CAN-SPAM Act of 2003: Legislative Context and Background

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
lilypadfrog
20:31
that seems crazy #tome
texaslawhopefully
20:32
No, at least from the two people I know there that’s false. I think it’s just something like Chicago for conservatives is on par with S whereas for liberals it’s below HYS but above CCNP
texaslawhopefully
20:32
I mean I think even the student body there only like 15 percent is part of fedsoc
It's more just not a good # for people who aren't willing to clerk conservative. I'm sure they place liberal clerks at an above average rate for a t-6 though. Maybe higher (not entirely sure)
texaslawhopefully
20:34
Page 14 has ideological splits by school: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/law-prof-ideology.pdf
texaslawhopefully
20:35
Chicago/UVA are more to the right but not by an exceedingly large difference
lilypadfrog
20:36
I feel like UVA doesn’t have that reputation the way Chicago does. That’s interesting. Thanks tex
yeah I've heard about uva being conservative
siroracle
20:48
Yeah it’s only 75 percent lib that’s pretty terrifying
Dkk
20:53
lmfao
20:59
@siroracle: funny cause true
@siroracle: don't you have a bridge to be under?
shouldn't you be collecting tolls
21:00
trolololol
atwatodbit
21:04
anyone know much about mich clerking
atwatodbit
21:05
ive tried to learn more about it but its hard to cut through stuff. numbers wise they look good?
21:06
this website is a good research tool for outcomes: https://app.lawhub.org/schools
atwatodbit
21:06
@llama: thanks!
21:06
yah
Dkk
21:10
Anyone else read the Antioch shooters manifesto today. Pretty crazy stuff.
21:14
sad
YRDSL
21:31
@texaslawhopefully: it's pretty funny how even in law journal articles people can't stop confusing Penn with Penn State
texaslawhopefully
21:40
lmfao I didn't even notice that
21:42
Yeah to penn Carey students I’m sure that is a
21:42
Those are fighting words
21:46
@Dkk: one of the most deranged documents i've ever had the displeasure of reading
lilypadfrog
22:03
sometimes I go into fight or flight mode until I get all my work done
i call that locking in
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.