[Magilla Marketing] If the first charges brought under Michigan’s so-called child-protection do-not-e-mail law are any indication, the state is casting a far wider net than Utah.
Moreover, the mailers charged in the case — a gambling advertiser and a wine club marketer — were not warned of Michigan’s child no-e-mail law before they were charged, according to court papers.
The state’s Attorney General Mike Cox announced last month that he filed charges against two companies alleging they violated the state’s child do-not-e-mail law.
According to court documents, Kelly Cool of Oakland County, MI, prompted an investigation when she reported in January that she had received a single e-mail from “4 Seasons Wine” to an account that was registered with the state’s Child Protection Registry.
Cox’s office used the IP address in the header of the wine-club e-mail to trace it to the Data Stream Group, whose proprietor is Eric Reinertsen. Reinertsen is listed on anti-spam group Spamhaus.org’s registry of known spam operations, or Rokso, list. Reinertsen was not reachable for comment.
In any case, whether the Data Stream Group is a spamming outfit or not, Michigan’s charging the company over a wine club ad confirms one of marketers’ most significant concerns over child no-e-mail registries: that though they are touted as a tool to protect children from pornography, law enforcement will use them against marketers of more mainstream and relatively harmless products.
Unlike Utah, which sought to allay mainstream marketers’ fears when it charged a pornographer in its first case, Michigan has sent a signal that it is prepared to go after any and all violators.
The other company charged in Michigan’s first prosecution of its child no-e-mail law is RR Media, Inc. of Cathedral City, CA. In that case, Cox’s office alleges that Gary Robert Shields of Wayne County prompted an investigation when he reported receiving an e-mail from “Casino Classic” to an account registered with the state’s child do-not-e-mail registry. The e-mail offered an hour of free gambling.
According to Cox’s office, Web site registry information listed Kevin Bever as the contact person for the gambling operation. After Michigan officials left a voice message for Bever, attorney Jim Snell of the law firm Bingham McClutchen returned the call and said he would be representing Bever, court papers say.
Snell was not reachable for comment.
Michigan and Utah passed almost identical laws last year allowing parents and guardians to register children’s e-mail addresses and other “contact points” as off limits to anything it is illegal for minors to view or buy. Marketers who want to include such material in e-mail are supposed to scrub their files against registries in Utah and Michigan for $5 and $7, respectively, per month per thousand addresses.
Unspam — the company that runs the registries — has been lobbying to have similar laws enacted in as many other states as possible claiming they’re a solution to protecting children from online pornography.
Legislators who have considered these registries have been clearly enamored with the questionable claim that they protect children against X-rated material. But both of the state laws that passed and all but one of the bills considered in other states last year covered all products and services illegal for minors to view or buy.
When Utah’s child-no-e-mail law was first passed, sources said that state officials had indicated their first enforcement of the registry would clearly be a statement that the state’s primary concern is protecting children from online pornography.
In January, Utah’s Division of Consumer Protection issued a $2,500 citation to Canadian pornographer, HoneyI[blanked]TheBabySitter.com. The state has yet to collect on the fine.
When asked for comment on Michigan’s two cases, Cox’s office responded by sending the court papers filed in the cases. The state is seeking fines of up to $10,000 in both cases.
Network
