Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

The U.S. Legal Context: Privacy, Commercial Solicitation, and Commercial Speech

Read a random definition: justice of the quorum

A quick definition of The U.S. Legal Context: Privacy, Commercial Solicitation, and Commercial Speech:

The U.S. has different laws to protect people's privacy in different situations, but there is no general law for privacy. Some laws require people to say "yes" before their information can be shared, while others allow people to say "no" after they have been told how their information will be used. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 is a law that allows businesses to send emails to people unless they say "no." The U.S. also has laws to stop companies from calling people's phones to sell things, and people can choose to be on a "do-not-call" list. The U.S. Constitution protects the right to talk about business, but the government can still make rules to protect people from false or harmful information.

A more thorough explanation:

The U.S. legal approach to privacy and the use of technology for commercial solicitation is reflected in the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. The Act is consistent with the U.S. statutory approach to privacy, which is context-specific and often based on an "opt-out" approach. This means that commercial actors can collect and share information unless individuals explicitly opt-out. The U.S. also has constitutional protection for commercial speech under the First Amendment, which allows for some regulation of commercial solicitation but with lower protection than other types of speech.

The U.S. does not have a general federal privacy statute but instead has specific laws for different contexts. For example, HIPAA and COPPA have an "opt-in" approach to privacy for health-related and children's information, while the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act has an "opt-out" approach for financial institutions. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 also has an "opt-out" approach for commercial email.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act regulate telemarketing and telephonic commercial solicitation. These laws restrict the use of certain technologies and created a "do-not-call" registry. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 follows a similar pattern in regulating commercial email and spam.

The First Amendment protects commercial speech, but with lower protection than other types of speech. Regulations can limit commercial speech as long as they are designed to achieve a substantial state objective. Unlawful or misleading commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 allows companies to send commercial emails to individuals unless they explicitly opt-out. This means that individuals may receive unwanted emails unless they take action to stop them. However, the Act also requires companies to include an opt-out mechanism in their emails and prohibits misleading subject lines and false headers.

This example illustrates the U.S. statutory approach to privacy, which is context-specific and often based on an "opt-out" approach. It also shows how the First Amendment allows for some regulation of commercial speech, but with lower protection than other types of speech.

The Canadian Legal Context: PIPEDA, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications, and the Competition Act | theft

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
texaslawhopefully
13:14
idk I feel like that Fulbright isn't that big of a diff, there's so many countries where it is easy to get
snow
13:14
im telling yall, sictycoffees and nothim are like prime kobe and shaq
texaslawhopefully
13:14
it is prolly they just had a great overall narrative and not KJD
13:14
^
13:14
KJD 🗑️ squad
Maybe a fulbright alone isnt insanity, but pairing it with several first author pubs is sick
13:15
Besides lion ur killin jt
texaslawhopefully
13:15
yeah half tuition at CLS is fantastic
Thank you! But lowkey my page a lil fake. Withdrew from UChi after missing the II and the fact my future wife wants to leave the midwest anyways (i cant lie its mainly the first reason tho)
13:16
UChi didn’t inv u but you hit cls w half
13:16
That’s crazy haha
Honestly no clue. I missed NU waves too. Quite frankly, I think my why chicago statements were very meh
My PS and DS were sort of emotion but ended on a happy note. My why chi’s also did a little emotional stuff and I think it might’ve hurt me a bit. No clue tho🤷🏽‍♂️
Trismegistus
13:17
im pubbed in a bar association does that not mean anything wtfffff :(
13:18
@ImpartialLion: water under the bridge for you now tbh 🔥
13:18
Wonder what HLS is doing w our apps tho
texaslawhopefully
13:18
at least you're wondering lol
texaslawhopefully
13:18
I had the II and then got R'd
lilypadfrog
13:19
guys am I part of this conversation i also have a good lsat and no acceptances. I want to feel included
Trismegistus
13:19
my own alma mater straight up ignoring me too
13:19
@lilypadfrog: ur not a kjd without work experience. Back off
I think I’m headed for the HLS WL. I heard that if you get off the WL, you put down your deposit before you hear your offer? Idk how i feel ab that
13:19
*
Every thursday, i still pretend like I have a chance at a II tho
13:20
Yeh my friend got it 5/15 last year… crazy late
13:20
Same same maybe tomorrow 😭
lilypadfrog
13:20
@sadpadresfan: :(
texaslawhopefully
13:21
that's a good thing 😭
texaslawhopefully
13:21
you have actual work experience
Trismegistus
13:21
i was on HLS WL and waited all summer :(
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.