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.

Comments

Not a very good case

[kawika]

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.

Re:Not a very good case

[iplayfast]

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 :(

Does it really matter?

[poofmeisterp]

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.

Re:Does it really matter?

[scottm52]

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.

the article is lacking in details

[Gunzour]

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.

a way to get proof

[standsolid]

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.

Telemarketers

[stratjakt]

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.

Common Sense

[Apple Acolyte]

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.