Consumers feel that the FTC’s do-not-call rule is a success because it has cut down on unwanted calls.
That’s not the case with Can-Spam. “The view of this is, ‘Where’s the beef?” said Ted Wham, general manager, personalized content and communications for Expedia Inc.
“There’s a belief on the Hill that more time is needed for Can-Spam,” added Jerry Cerasale, Jerry Cerasale, senior vice president of government affairs for the Direct Marketing Association. “The jury’s still out.”
People think Can-Spam is ineffective because “there’s no meaningful change” in the amount of spam received in the inbox,” said Wham. And that might be because the law was never meant to stand alone, but as part of a “trifecta” with technology and consumer education, according to Jennifer Archie, a partner in the law firm of Latham & Watkins L.L.P.
Cerasale agreed. “You can’t have legislation alone, or technology alone,” he said. “With technology, you end up with an arms race, and you need police power to help technology.”
Does that mean that the legislation was needed?
“It’s a sad statement, but that’s the way it is,” Cersasle said. “We could not do it with self regulation.”
That said, the panelists agreed that technology and enforcement are also not where they should be. For the most part, law officers have not yet found a way to ferret out criminal spammers, those guilty of what Archie called “plain vanilla racketeering,” involving offshore money laundering and ID theft.
“There are a lot of ways for a spammers to hide their tracks, and it’s hard for groups like AOL to go after them, ” Wham said. “It takes time and resources and a commitment of money.”
And legitimate firms have their own problems, like deciding exactly what an opt-in
Network
