Slashdot Mirror


First Test of Utah Anti-Spam Law Dismissed

fwoomer writes "Apparently, Utah feels that once you've 'opted-in' you can't opt back out as fast as you've opted in. From the story: 'Gillman requested removal on May 14, 2002, from the e-mailing lists his visit to Audio Galaxy a month earlier had linked him to. Two days later, he received a Sprint ad, and on May 28 he filed suit. The court found his attempt to have himself removed from the lists was insufficient to void the pre-existing business relationship.' If he was receiving spam in May after 'opting in' in April, I don't see how it could be unreasonable to expect to be removed from lists as fast as he was added. Unfortunately there's not much detail in this story. A good read, nonetheless." I don't see how signing up with Audiogalaxy establishes a business relationship with Sprint, but, whatever. Presumably some of the other lawsuits filed are against people that have no possible claim to the receiver opting-in.

23 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. collusion by simpl3x · · Score: 3, Insightful

    so businesses could group together, making the receipt of "email notifications" part of the terms of service... poof, no more opting out.

  2. Not a very good case by kawika · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you think that AudioGalaxy connects to all its partners in real time when it comes to sharing email addresses? If they generate a list for their partners every week, for example, wouldn't it make sense that it also takes at least a week to get off the list? I'm against spam but I'm also for common sense. Which this guy didn't seem to have when he gave permission to be emailed in the first place.

    1. Re:Not a very good case by iplayfast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However AudioGalaxy does it, isn't really our worry. They may have a central database, that others use, or they may make a list and send it out world wide. The point is, if you've opted out, from a list, then you have opted out from the list. Perhaps the spammer, should send their emails though AudioGalaxy to be sure that the addresses are still optin.

      I don't know the particulars of the case, but it seems to me, that if a company is providing an opt out service, it should work. The details are the companies problems. (but the judge didn't see it that way :(

    2. Re:Not a very good case by DroppedPacket · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do you think that AudioGalaxy connects to all its partners in real time when it comes to sharing email addresses?

      Good point. The question is what does the law say about how long until the SALE stops? Remember, once somebody has purchased the list, it may not be able to be revoked by the seller. In which case, you have to track down who it was sold too and remove yourself from their bright shiny new list.

      And so on, and so on, and so on...

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
  3. Why Sprint? by The+Turd+Report · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I don't see how signing up with Audiogalaxy establishes a business relationship with Sprint, but, whatever

    Most likely, the agreement to opting in to AudioGalaxy includes recieving offers from third parties.

  4. The best spam solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The best spam solution would be to make people pay a refundable (at your option) fee to send email to you. However, someone patented this general concept.

  5. what?!?! by garcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unfortunately there's not much detail in this story. A good read, nonetheless.

    A "good read" has lots of details, not media bullshit. Remember that submitters and staff before posting a story please.

  6. Does it really matter? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What does it matter if you opt-out of a mail list?
    Once you've opted in, the third party can then sell your address again and you then have NO way of tracking it around.
    Unless a system identical to the national "Do-Not-Call Registry" can be established for email addresses, there's not a damn thing you can do about spam in relation to opt-in/opt-out lists.

    1. Re:Does it really matter? by scottm52 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not far off the mark.... However, if one state does establish a no-spam list (like the no-call lists) a HUGE impact against spammers would be felt.

      For example...

      1) State has "no-spam" act...
      2) You get spam
      3) You report spam
      4) State gets enough complaints to act (not many really)
      5) State AG office actually buys something, traces the $$$, gets the bank acct data.
      6) State AG gets Court Order freezing the $$Bank Accts$$ until trial concludes.
      7) Trial occurs or spammer settles

      Result? Just a couple of these from a single state and since spammers don't know where they're sending email, they're gonna get real scared, real fast.

      I only hope the Missouri No-Spam act (pending) will end up implementing an approach like this one.

    2. Re:Does it really matter? by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This sounds a lot like the California system, so far, no results. But on the up shot, the CA AG is actively seeking spam which defies the laws, and we may see some action eventually.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
  7. Re:Partners bullshit... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My father tried this already. He's found it impossible to do business with anyone because somewhere in EVERY company's paperwork, there's a caluse that allows them to share your information. Even if there's a separate entry that states they will not share it, it's overridden by another section (or whatever.)
    My father and I, through extensive testing, have discovered that the only lists that you can effectively opt-out of are the ones that drones gather as points of sale in stores (phone, email, address, etc.) Everything else is free game.
    Even then (as was the case with Radio Shack before they changed their info gathering techniques) some companies will refuse to proceed with a sale unless you provide them with this information.

  8. Re:Dangers of "Opting Out" by slamb · · Score: 3, Insightful
    So in reality "Opting out" often will only bring you MORE spam, not less.

    Yes, when I get random emails claiming to be opt-out lists or that I opted in, I also don't opt out for this reason.

    But this is a different situation. He opted in to a list with Audiogalaxy. A relatively reputable place, and they already knew his email address was valid because he opted in. It was a reasonable thing to do, and the spam should stop afteward. But judge apparently felt it was not practical for them to have distributed that notification to all their partners in two days, so he threw out the lawsuit. Presumably it takes them that long to distribute opt-ins also.

  9. Re:As to be expected by maddh · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If you opt-out, you need someone who's trained to delete

    very true, but i'd expect a well designed system just to use a boolean Y or N in the database as to whether the customer wants to receive mail, rather than deleting the whole record. Just because they can't mail to a customer doesn't mean they can't use the info in other ways.

    matt

  10. the article is lacking in details by Gunzour · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article, it seems that this is what happened:

    - User signs up on website run by company A (Audio Galaxy)
    - company A sells User's email address to company B (Sprint)
    - User opts-out on company A's web site
    - User gets spam from company B

    I hate spam as much as everyone else, but I don't see how this can violate any law. If the User opted-in, which it appears he did, and then later opted-out, Audio Galaxy can't be expected to go around to everyone they sold his email address to and say "Hey, that email we sold to you before? Stop using it!" Audio Galaxy should stop selling his email address at that point, but that would have no effect on the apparent sequence of events here.

    If anyone is able to find the actual court ruling I'd be interested in reading it. I don't see where the "existing business relationship" exists (for all we know he may be a Sprint customer), but if the events happened as I listed, I don't think it's relevant.

    1. Re:the article is lacking in details by norton_I · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He opted in to receive promotional material from Audiogalaxy's partners. He later opted out, but still received promotional material from Audiogalaxy's partners. That is exactly how it can violate a law. Yes, I do expect them to call up everyone they sold his email address to and say "stop using it" If they are going to sell email addresses of their customers, they need to provide a way to do that, or they are being irresponsible.

      However, I think there should be some room for a resonable time to process that claim, but I would say that if they can't have the email address expunged from their records and all of their "associates" (and all they way down the food chain, if they allow the list to be resold) within 2 weeks, that is unreasonable.

  11. "Reasonable" time by linuxwrangler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Arent said her bill's language could use some fine-tuning, included (sic) providing e-mailers reasonable time to comply with requests for removal."

    It seems to me that in this connected electronic world the maximum "reasonable time" for removal would be the amount of time it takes to add someone.

    If you plan to share the data with your "partners" then you should be damn certain that you have a mechanism in place to effect removals from all associated databases just as fast.

    This would of course only apply to time of message origination - you can't unregister on Monday and then sue on Tuesday for receiving a mail sent on Sunday but stuck in an intermediate server.

    --

    ~~~~~~~
    "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
  12. a way to get proof by standsolid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    buy a domain name (or get a free subdomain from someone -- whatever). I have all my email directed to one account.

    so for signing up with any service i use this address

    joebob-audiogalaxy@junk.foofoofoobar.com
    or
    jo ebob-slashdot@junk.foofoofoobar.com

    and that redirects to my real email address

    joebob@foofoofoobar.com

    any email with To "junk.foofoofoobar.com" i direct to a spam folder. If i find a site that vlaims it won't sell my information, but magically sprint is emailing my audiogalaxy address... it tends to perk my ears up. Proof.

    --
    WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
    What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
    1. Re:a way to get proof by Zlurg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't too bad an idea. Maybe we can start harvesting deliberately bad email addresses and deliberately honeypotting those who send to it and publish the list to everyone else with an idle DNS & SMTP server so they can do the same thing. Maybe we could band together and bring the 'Net to a fucking CRAWL with all our nonsene.

      I'm only half kidding with this. I have an idle DNS / SMTP server, and we can make up a domain name not likely to be guessed, like dhxlwqgm.com and that way we KNOW anyone sending to it is a spammer.

      Problem is, spam isn't going away. If we don't do something LEGALLY to get the authorities bought into our plight, then spammers will do something legally to insure their way of life survives. Until then, we're cutting off our own noses for the privilege of saying "You ca-ANT spam me! Neener neener nEEEEEEner! I'm untouchable; only real mail gets through to me go bug someone else."

      If you want spam to stop, then want it to stop for EVERYONE.

  13. Telemarketers by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have to give telemarketers 30 days to remove you from their lists when you ask. I dont see how online spam should be different.

    If you opt in, and then later opt-out, and get an e-mail 2 days later, I don't see it as some great evil. You shouldnt have opted in in the first place.

    You all need to chill pushing for all these spam laws, regulating the internet is a bad thing in the end. Do you really want your real name and SSN tied to your e-mail account for the sake of ending spam? (Because thats about the only solution the government will come up with).

    Beef up your filters and accept it.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:Telemarketers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You have to give telemarketers 30 days to remove you from their lists when you ask

      No, you don't.
      There is no provision in the law for any delay.
      If they can take an order 'right now' they certainly have the technology to respect "put this number on your do not call list" 'right now' too.

      If you tell them not to call (with the exact words the law calls for - telemarketers will obey the letter but not the spirit of the law) and they call again, file a complaint with the FCC. The law was just broken.

  14. Common Sense by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 4, Insightful
    For the love of God, please don't bring the government in to regulate the Internet! That's a can of worms I wrongly assumed slashdotters would decry. Common sense dictates that one company cannot be automatically beholden to another's privacy policy. Each company dictates its own terms concerning information collection and privacy. And each firm has its own opt out policy. If AudioGalaxy shares your address with Sprint, and Sprint shares information with spammer C, AudioGalaxy shouldn't be held responsible for the spam that you receive from spammer C, D, E etc. . . AudioGalaxy and Sprint could have been acting in good faith.

    The majority of the responsibility here belongs to the individual. If a firm handles addresses improperly, it's the user's choice whether or not to continue using the service. No company is forcing any user to subscribe to their services. Use some common sense - protect your main address by only giving it out to those you trust, and give everyone else a separate address. That's how I keep myself spam free.

    --
    Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
  15. Michael strikes again by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't see how signing up with Audiogalaxy establishes a business relationship with Sprint, but, whatever.

    I don't see how being a Slashdot Editor gives you justification for attaching your comments to the story submission instead of leaving a comment like everyone else, but, whatever.

    Time, I think, to go to Preferences and banish Michael to the bit bucket. I'm sure Jon Katz would be glad to switch places with him.

  16. Something to try: by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not that it's worth anything, but who knows. When I get spam from a reputable company, I typically try to find their customer service email address and send them this little form letter. I doubt that it does any good, but if enough people showed the larger corporations that we don't want spam, perhaps the meat and potatoes of the spam mailing list scumbags would be dropped just a little.

    Dear: Company

    Today I received an unwanted, unsolicited email from your company (spam). I always believed that your corporation was honest and forthright, and it is beyond my comprehension why you would decide to set yourself alongside pornographers and scam artists by using unsolicited spam email.

    Regardless of what your spam mailing company has told you, I have never consciously 'opted in' to receive email from them, you, or any of their partners. They have either gained my 'approval' using deception or trickery, or they have simply lied and found the email address somewhere on the Internet. In either event, I have never, nor will ever want to receive unsolicited spam email. In other words, I don't want to get this type of mail. Ever. And I have never actively asked to receive it.

    Spam mailing companies such as the one you use are corrupt and crooked. These are not honest businesses. And I cannot with good conscious do business with any company that chooses to partner with near criminals to conduct marketing. As such, I will not do business with you until you stop associating with these shady organizations.

    Please do not forward this to your spam mailing list provider in a show of 'good faith' to 'opt me out'. All this will do is inform them that this is a valid email address, and place me on numerous other mailing lists. Like I said, these are not honest business people. If you doubt this, ask them exactly where and where I 'opted in' to get this junk. Ask them why they often use different and misleading domains to get around my 'block sender list'. They will be unable to provide you with an answer, because I have never actively 'opted-in', and they will try every trick in the book to get their junk through. Again, this is because they are dishonest.

    If you decide to stop using this sort of unethical marketing, please inform me. I would be more then happy to continue doing business with you.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid