TWO RECENT PIECES of legislation in California may crack down on unsolicited electronic mailings in that state.
The first, AB 1676, has been signed into law by Gov. Pete Wilson. The bill prohibits e-mailers from sending unsolicited offers unless a toll-free telephone number or a valid “do not promote” return postal or e-mail address for opting out is included. Requests to be taken off the e-mail lists must be honored.
Additionally, unsolicited electronic advertising must contain “ADV:” as the first four characters in its subject line, and “ADV: ADLT” for solicitations aimed at consumers 18 years of age or older.
With the exception of the subject line provisions, previously enacted legislation covered the above points regarding unsolicited fax offers. As with unsolicited faxes, punishment for violating the e-mail stipulations is a $500 fine for each transmission.
William Park, founder/president of San Mateo, CA-based Internet marketing consultants Digital Impact, is enthusiastic about the ramifications for responsible marketers, but less so about having the state legislate responsibility.
“I think it poses a threat to irresponsible marketers, but to the responsible marketers that want to engage in a relevant conversation with their customers, this takes away a lot of the static in the system. Responsible marketers already make it easy to opt out. I’d rather see self-regulation than governmental regulation, [but] I’d rather see some high bar set than the absence of one.”
There is some debate as to the effectiveness of subject line modifications. “I’m not sure that ‘ADV:’ means anything unless there is a huge campaign to alert consumers,” says Susan Scott, executive director of TRUSTe, a Palo Alto, CA Internet organization focusing on individual privacy rights online. She also feels the ADV:ADLT modification may be counterproductive. “What does ‘ADLT’ mean to a kid?” she asks. “It means, ‘Open it!'”
But Tom Klenke, president of Net consultants eClass Direct in Half Moon Bay, CA, says having to label unsolicited e-mail with the tags is “sort of a bummer for those companies doing unsolicited mailings.” But he himself is not bummed: 98% of eClass Direct’s business, he says, consists of his clients talking to their customers.
The second bill, AB 1629, which was on Gov. Wilson’s desk as of early September, outlines damages an electronic mail service provider may collect from a marketer violating the service provider’s policy on unsolicited advertisements.
Under the stipulations of AB 1629, the provider may bring a civil suit to recover $50 for each electronic mail message initiated, up to a maximum of $25,000 per day, whichever is greater. But the bill only covers messages that originate from equipment located in California.
Network
