Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

CAN-SPAM Act of 2003: Role of the Federal Trade Commission

Read a random definition: public agent

A quick definition of CAN-SPAM Act of 2003: Role of the Federal Trade Commission:

The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 is a law that tells people who send emails for business what they can and cannot do. If they break the rules, they can get in trouble with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is the group that makes sure people follow the law. The FTC can also make new rules to help enforce the law. The law also says that the FTC has to tell Congress about how well the law is working and if there are any new ideas to make it better. Two of the ideas they looked at were making a list of people who don't want to get spam emails and giving rewards to people who help catch spammers.

A more thorough explanation:

The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 is a law that sets rules for commercial emailers to follow when sending spam. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is responsible for enforcing these rules and making sure that emailers do not engage in unfair or deceptive practices.

For example, if an emailer sends spam without providing a way for recipients to unsubscribe, they are violating the CAN-SPAM Act. The FTC can take action against them and impose penalties.

The FTC also has the power to create rules and regulations related to the CAN-SPAM Act. For instance, they have established rules that require emailers to include a physical address in their emails.

Additionally, the FTC is required to submit reports to Congress about the effectiveness of the CAN-SPAM Act. For example, they have studied the potential usefulness of a "Do Not Email Registry" and a "bounty" system for catching spammers.

CAN-SPAM Act of 2003: Problematic Spamming Techniques | CAN-SPAM Act of 2003: Senate Commerce Committee Report

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
yeah but it's also including people below your stats
15:15
Yeah, really my issue is deciding whether to R&R or to just take UF law
also if you reduce the top end of lsat to 170, you have a 33% chance at NYU+columbia, 67% at NU, 33 at mich, 40% berk, 40% UCLA, 100% Cornell, and 50% gulc
realistically you would make it into at least one
15:16
I'm still waiting on a bunch of T14 so hopefully those stats are a good indicator
15:16
idk wait it out - if good offer take if no good offer R&R
i dont think you need to R&R im pretty sure you make it into at least one t14
but if you apply earlier its just a lot easier
15:17
thats odd I didn't see those stats, but ok. We talked abt this awhile back and I'm working on Columbia + Berkeley rn then Cornell, probs is I'm not gonna produce good Why X's before the 25th but whatever
https://www.lsd.law/search/cV9E6 this is artificially deflated because it's only below your stats
someone got into harvard and chicago with your stats
15:19
Why is that deflating it? isnt that a better indicator instead of choosing above median LSATs? Genuinely curious just wondering
when stats are close because of the variability you want a little above your stats and a little below to get more data, adcoms arent so finnicky that 2 points on the lsat is make or break unless it puts you above median, and even then 50% are below median so it's not as big of an impact as you might think. the reason the chanceme tool goes a little above and below your stats by default is to capture a more accurate picture
ie your softs/WE/essays might make you more or less competitive than any random applicant and the best way to account for that is to take a little above and a little below
15:21
got it, I was of the mindset that medians are pretty concrete so taking a +2 LSAT score range was just giving me irrelevant data. Thank you
15:21
Def my softs/essays are the strongest part of my application so hoping they shine through
they kind of are but you see with the data here is doesnt really change your chances going from 172 to 170
yeah youll be in a good place for this cycle
15:22
yeah I guess thats true, I've also been looking at "Included" not "Only" for URM so maybe that's a diff too
15:22
Appreciate it man!
yeah included is giving you data for nURM which isnt relevant for your cycle
and ofc, good luck :)
15:24
Holiday messages from law schools should be illegal
jackfrost11770
15:27
the cornell one actually gave me a heart attack no joke
15:28
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: Thanks! Will def update you as they come out hahaha
CynicalOops
16:09
No one cares about me the way western new england cares about me
shaquilleoatmeal
17:16
gulc sending me a "Thank you for your continuing patience" almost has me shitting myself like the dude who hiked Acatanengo volcano
18:09
i’m wishing you guys happy holidays in a more sincere and genuine and heartfelt way than any of the law schools and also giving u a little kiss on the cheek
18:10
just btw
shaquilleoatmeal
18:15
😚
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.