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

Government in action

[rcathcart]

after receiving about 46,000 complaints

You've got to wonder why they didn't wait for 100,000.

Re:Government in action

[Rick.C]

You've got to wonder why they didn't wait for 100,000.

Thank God they didn't!

I don't think I could have typed another 54,000.

Lonely

[The Bungi]

The FTC accused Brian D. Westby, of suburban St. Louis, of using the e-mail spam operation to drive business to an adult Web site called "Married But Lonely."

Hopefully Mr. Westby will heretofore be "Lonely with Guido" in a minimum security facility for at least a few years.

We can only hope.

Deceptive Subject Lines??

[ToadSprocket]

When consumers opened the e-mail messages, they were immediately subjected to sexually explicit solicitations

Oh cmon, these people are so picky. What sort of shut-in do you have to be to consider sex with dogs and horses "sexually explicit"?

Sheesh.

It's All Just Cost Of Doing Business

[TheWanderingHermit]

We've seen info on some spammers with their mansions and high priced lifestyles paid for by spam revenues here on /.

As long as they are hit with simple fines or only shut down temporarily, or only forced to change their tactics, they'll keep going. They make too much money to stop.

They'll only stop when sending spam costs more than their rewards. When they are fined enough or sued for enough that they lose their expensive new houses and other trappings of luxery, then they'll think about it.

In the meantime, don't expect the FTC or anyone from the Bush administration to do anything more than slap the hand of anyone making a good deal of money.

Re:Keep the government out of this!

[MojoRilla]

Yeah, that's just what we need -- governments passing laws to outlaw things that the majority of the population doesn't like. I wonder other unpopular things they're looking at banning. At least Ashcroft hasn't labeled spammers as enemy combatants engaged in cyberterrorism and shipped them all off to Guantonomo Bay without a trial -- yet.

Spoken like a true spammer.

The government has a long history of regulating how a business advertises. Perhaps you long for the day when a business could completely lie in its advertising, but I don't.

Forward your spam to the FTC

[travdaddy]

A slashdot article FTC Encourages Consumers to Forward Them Spam was posted on September 7, 2002 stating that the FTC wanted people to forward them spam at uce@ftc.gov.

Re:It's a shame

[ralico]

Well, if they did, it would be a new avenue for pr0n spam, "Get Free pics of spammers getting poiunded in prison..."

actual ftc site

[ih8apple]

Here's the actual FTC announcement...

For the love of.....

[DownTheLongRoad]

Too bad it took 46000 complaints to prompt some action, but at least some action is being taken.

Is it possibly for stories to be posted without someone's cynical or uninformed opinion? Yes, I realize this is Slashdot but it is beyond annoying at this point. How does the submitter know what the relevance of the number of complaints is? Maybe the FTC has some minimum number of people that must complain before they take action and many of the complaints were from the same person.

I found someone who actually reads spam

[select * from]

This happened about 2 weeks ago.

Our internal email in our office scans incoming and outgoing mail for viruses, spam, etc. Some spam slips through. In this case it was one of the numerous increase penile length spams.

When an email that is sent out and is blocked for some reason we are automatically notified. In this case someone forwarded the penile lotion lengther spam back to his home account so presumably he could read it later at home and perhaps try the product. This time it actually caught the spam going out when he tried forwarding it.

This "someone" was the president of our company. So far he hasn't asked us why the email he forwarded didn't go through. Of course we'll know if he eventually got it to go through when he starts wearing a loin cloth to work.

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.