Utah’s latest cockamamie anti-online-marketing law has child-no-e-mail registry operator Matthew Prince’s fingerprints all over it.
Except this time, he may not even gain financially from the state’s latest legislative attempt to destroy the commercial Internet
Last month, the if-an-Internet-law-is-zany-enough-we’ll-pass-it state enacted the innocuously named Trademark Protection Act banning online ads triggered by a competitor’s trademark. For example, when the law takes effect on June 30, it will be illegal for Google to let Nike bid on the keyword Reebok for ads to be served in Utah.
A lot of companies are going to love this law because it eliminates competitors’ ability to position advertising by playing off the strength of another company’s brand. However, that line of logic is like saying a Dodge dealer shouldn’t be able to purchase billboard space next to a Honda dealer’s showroom.
Moreover, Utah’s own general counsel has said it is unlikely that the state’s Trademark Protection Act will pass a constitutional challenge. Meanwhile, how much pain and suffering this law will cause until it gets overturned is anyone’s guess.
And get this: In order to be recognized as a trademark under this piece of legislate-o-wackiness, the trademark’s holder must pay a fee to the state. The amount hasn’t been set yet, but could be up to $250 a year.
But wait, there’s more: The law will not be enforced by the state attorney general, but by private-practice lawyers. Utah will only maintain the marks in a database for ad servers to check against. See the beauty? The registry will generate revenue for the state while providing a dubious benefit. Yet it will require no government resources to enforce. Breathtaking.
Hmmm. Utah? A registry? Stupid Internet law? Questionable fees?
Are we ringing any bells here? If not, how about this: Matthew Prince, CEO of Unspam, the company that lobbied for Utah’s comically misnamed child-protection do-not-e-mail law and won the contract to maintain the resulting registry, has been blogging on a Utah Senate Web site in support of the state’s new trademark law. He also reportedly helped write the statute, leading some to believe he is angling for another database-management government contract.
According to an Associated Press article published last week, Prince at first denied his company was involved, “but the legislative sponsors said Unspam Vice President Erin Barry, who is also a registered lobbyist, pushed the legislation,” said the article by reporter Paul Foy.
Oops.
“It was clear this law came straight from his company,” Foy said when contacted by this newsletter.
Prince claimed in an article on ClickZ to back the law. However, he reportedly said his company has no financial interest in the statute. “Unspam has no financial interest in this legislation…. Unspam has no plans to bid on that contract, but that doesn't say I won't be involved at some point,” he said, according to ClickZ.
Okay, so Unspam has no financial interest. Notice he didn’t say he had no financial interest. So how about a newly formed company called, say, Unmarketing? Or how about UnableToStopMuckingUpOnlineAdvertising? Yeah, that would be a good name for it. Maybe that company will have some financial interest.
But here’s the weirdest part: Francine Giani, executive director of the Utah Department of Commerce, told this newsletter her agency is going to try and maintain the database in-house. If possible, there will be no outside contractor involved, she said.
So let’s get this straight: Prince has just helped royally screw up another perfectly legitimate online marketing model and this time, he may not get any money for it. Would someone pleeeeze find something productive for him to do?
And isn’t there some way we can cut off Utah’s Internet access?
