FTC vs Spammers

binaryDigit writes "The San Jose Mercury News has an article on the FTC getting ready to take action on an (alleged) spammer. 'The Federal Trade Commission said today that after receiving about 46,000 complaints it had asked a federal judge to halt the operation.' Too bad it took 46000 complaints to prompt some action, but at least some action is being taken. The FTC will focus on the "deception" involved (innocent and misleading subject lines, bogus (but real) from/reply to addresses, etc)."

Comments

The FTC now says they can regulate spam

[Animats]

The FTC's legal position is significant. Read the legal documents in the case. First, the FTC says they have the legislative authority to regulate spam, because they have the authority to regulate false or misleading advertising. Second, they don't draw a distinction between the spammer and the business being advertised:

• Because the "Married But Lonely" spam forges the identity of the sender, it is unclear whether Westby sends the spam himself or whether he employs someone else to send it. Even if he does hire someone to send the spam, he is still liable for these practices. Westby is liable for deceptive or unfair practices he engages in himself or for those of his employees or agents who are acting on his behalf. Under the FTC Act, a principal is liable for misrepresentations made by agents with actual or apparent authority to make such representations, regardless of any unsuccessful efforts by the principal to prevent such misrepresentations.
• See Southwest Sunsites, Inc. v. FTC, 785 F.2d 1431, 1438-39 (9th Cir. 1986); FTC v. Skybiz.com, Inc., 2001 WL 1673645, at *9 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 31, 2001); FTC v. Five-Star Auto Club, Inc., 97 F. Supp. 2d 502, 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). It is inappropriate for a principal to "`reap the fruits from their [agents'] acts and doings without incurring such liabilities as attach thereto."' Skybiz.com, 2001 WL 1673645, at *9 (quoting Goodman v. FTC, 244 F.2d 584, 591-92 (9th Cir. 1957)).

Note what the FTC is saying. They don't even have to prove that the business being advertised by spam paid the spammer. If someone benefitted from the spam, the beneficiary is liable.

If a court agrees, as is likely, you don't sue spammers any more. You go after the deep pocket - the business being advertised. This is going to bring spamming on behalf of legitimate businesses to a screeching halt.