By Susan Breslow Sardone
"The Internet is changing
our lives, largely for the better. But as consumers, we should
have the power to stop getting junk email on our computers or
on the computers of our children," says Congresswoman Heather
Wilson (D - New Mexico).
Wilson is the sponsor of H.R. 718, the Unsolicited Commercial
Electronic Mail Act of 2001, introduced earlier this year. It's
one of several bills designed to introduce a set of rules to regulate
the commercial email industry. A popular issue with legislators
(a similar version passed last year, with only one dissenting
vote), Wilson's bill has bipartisan support.
In this session, H.R. 718 has already passed the House Commerce Committee. The House Judiciary Committee marked up its own version in May, making changes to be reconciled in the House Rules Committee. While there is no deadline, Wilson and supporters are hopeful it will be brought to the House floor for a vote prior to the July 4 recess.
The bill proposes "It shall be unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission of a commercial electronic mail messageunless such message contains a valid electronic mail address, conspicuously displayed, to which a recipient may send a reply to the initiator to indicate a desire not to receive any further messages." Additionally, it calls for "identification that the message is an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message." Violators could face a fine of $500 per incident, not to exceed a total of $50,000.
"The problem with spam is that the receiver pays for email advertisements," Wilson maintains. "Junk email is like 'postage due' marketing or telemarketers calling collect. This bill will give parents and consumers the power to say enough is enough and close their inbox to annoying and obscene junk email."
Ben Isaacson, executive director of the Association for Interactive Media, which represents some 500 technology companies (many of them e-mail marketers), sees the issue somewhat differently. Although he supports anti-fraud measures in the bill, "We feel any labeling violates First Amendment rights."
Isaacson is also concerned that because legislators don't fully understand email marketing, the bill "could have a deleterious effect on third-party permission emailers." For example, an intermediary service company that merely sends and stores email addresses could be held liable for not complying to an opt-out request in a timely fashion.
A proponent of industry self-regulation,
Isaacson adds, "We have a number of business guidelines being
developed and a consumer initiative campaign to explain how recipients
can stop spam themselves." In the meantime, he encourages
email marketers to lobby on their own behalf by contacting Congress
members to explain what they do and how this bill would affect
them.
Copyright © 2001 Susan Breslow Sardone