January 13, 2005

The CAN-SPAM Act: Finally Gets Serious

The FTC has has won a court order to temporarily halt a pornography Spam ring that stretches from Las Vegas to Latvia. This is the first Spam litigation brought by the agency under the Adult Labeling Rule of the CAN-SPAM Act. Although we do not normally list the URLs of Adult sites in any of our articles, it's impossible to properly document this landmark case without doing so. Our apologies to our valuable guests if this offends you.

The allegations by the FTC

"The complaint charges that the defendants violated the Adult Labeling Rule by sending sexually-explicit e-mails that: failed to contain the required identifying mark; contained sexually-explicit material within the initially-viewable areas; and failed to include an opt-out before the sexually-explicit material.

The complaint also charges that the defendants violated the CAN-SPAM Act by sending e-mail or procuring third parties to send e-mail that:

Contained false or misleading transmission information;
Contained deceptive subject headings;
Failed to contain functioning opt-out mechanisms or did not contain any opt-out mechanisms;
Failed to identify the e-mail as an advertisement or solicitation; and
Failed to provide the sender’s valid physical postal address.

In addition, the FTC alleges that the defendants violated the FTC Act by falsely stating that membership to their Web sites was free. According to the FTC, by the time consumers realized that the defendants charged a fee for their Web sites, consumers had already given them their e-mail addresses."

Source: Please see the FTC Press Release

The band of slime bags which include an affiliate

The defendant's in this action are: Global Net Solutions, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; Global Net Ventures, Ltd., a United Kingdom Company; Wedlake, Ltd., a Corporation; Open Space Enterprises, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; Southlake Group, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; WTFRC Inc., a Nevada Corporation doing business as Reflected Networks, Inc.; Dustin Hamilton, individually and as an officer or director of Global Net Solutions, Inc., Global Net Ventures, Ltd., and WTFRC, Inc.; Tobin Banks, individually and as director of Open Space Enterprises, Inc.; Gregory Hamilton, individually and as an officer and director of Southlake Group, Inc.; Philip Doroff, individually and as an officer of Reflected Networks, Inc., now renamed WTFRC, Inc.; and Paul Rose, individually; Defendants., United States District Court, District of Nevada.

Webmasters and Affiliate Networks should make note that this action names an Arizona-based affiliate named Paul Rose. This slime bag is AKA "john baker" and uses this email address: idbud@epimp.com. This affiliate uses the following sites to promote the GNS (Global Net Solutions) Defendants Affiliate Program, which he owns: bjkandy.com, jgjenny.com, fritzwebcam.com, and numerous other sites. You can read the full list of sites in the FTC Complaint. The name of the affiliate program which is run by GNS is signup4cash.com. An affiliate sending Spam is nothing new but being named as a defendant in a FTC action under the CAN-SPAM Act is certainly new and hopefully will encourage Networks to actively police their affiliates. I suggest that all Networks (mainstream and adult) immediately ban the affiliate for the first offense and not pay them. This policy should be clearly documented in your TOS and internally you need to keep all emails sent and notes of your action. If your affiliates send Spam in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act, you may also be the target of an FTC action. Even if the Network is not guilty, the adverse publicity and legal costs will be very damaging.

The Opt-Out Game

A lot of this porn Spam didn't included a working opt-out mechanisms, as required in CAN-SPAM. A lot of the email that did include and opt-out option, required the recipient to scroll through adult pictures to find the opt-out link. This trick has been used for years and it's refreshing to finally see the FTC take note of these procedures.

The CAN-SPAM Act Summary

While it did take the FTC over one year to file it's first action, I think this first piece of litigation is a good sign. Many more suits by the FTC are required. Not one per year but dozens per year. Keep after the slimy affiliates and the Networks. We hope the next piece of FTC litigation names a mainstream Network and their affiliates, which should send a loud signal that the FTC means business.

Posted by Steve_S at January 13, 2005 10:47 AM