FTC Levies Fine Against Big-league Spammers

An anonymous reader writes "The FTC said it has closed down a spam operation in California that sent millions of unwanted messages to online users across the country and fined the companies involved about $2.4 million. The settlement doesn't shut down the businesses and, based on the financial records of the defendants, the judgment will be suspended upon payment of $475,000."

Comments

CAN not stop SPAM?

[digitaldc]

The FTC and California charged that the defendants e-mail:
-- contained false or forged header information;
-- included deceptive subject headings;
-- failed to identify e-mail as advertisements or solicitations;
-- failed to notify consumers they had a right to opt out of receiving more e-mail;
-- failed to provide an opt-out mechanism;
-- failed to include a valid physical postal address.

If this can't get them shut down what can? Sending out spam email that totally destroys your computer into tiny little pieces?

Re:CAN not stop SPAM?

[slavemowgli]

There's an even bigger problem with this: namely, that as soon as business *complies* with these things, it'll be perfectly legal for them to spam you. Oh, sure, you can opt-out, but that's a lot of hassles when you receive spam from thousands of companies; and what's more, how are you going to distinguish spam from compliant companies (where the opt-out links works as advertised) and other sorts of spam that provide you with "opt-out" links that, in reality, are merely used to verify email addresses etc.?

Licensing spam is like allowing people to break into your house and steal your stuff provided they leave you a business card and offer you an opportunity to opt out for the future.

Re:CAN not stop SPAM?

[techno-vampire]

I'd fine them $1 for every violaton of the act. Doesn't sound like much does it? Iet's see. Joe Spammer sends connects to his ISP's SMTP server and uploads 1,000,000 spams at once. One violation. No, each spam email is a seperate violation, meaning that he's just violated the act 1,000,000 times all at once. Considering the number of times he's done it, he'll never get out from under because you're not allowed to clear fines or civil judgements with bankrupcy. He'll be living in a one-room apartment on ramen for the rest of his life because everything else will be grabbed by the government to help pay the fine. Works for me!

C'mon FTC

[Anonymous Coward]

So, basically what the FTC is saying to these companies is pay us for sending out your spam. I'm sure the fines will actually go up at that rate, but it doesn't solve the problem per se.

I wonder if the FTC will turn around and use the fine money to pay the people who were affected by the spam? Nah!

Re:C'mon FTC

[Phroggy]

I'm hoping they'll use the fine money to fund investigation and prosecution of more spammers, instead of using tax money to do it.

Only shuts down the business, not the people

[Gothmolly]

Spam is hugely profitable, because your overhead is nil. That means the spammers involved have lots of cash. And their company probably has no assets, and will fold into bankruptcy because of these fines. So what does this mean? The guys dig into their pockets filled with cash, and start another company and do it all over again. Its sort of a nice noble gesture, from when Congress clearly had nothing better to do, but its about as effective as making speeding illegal.

Re:Only shuts down the business, not the people

[Professor_UNIX]

That means the spammers involved have lots of cash. And their company probably has no assets, and will fold into bankruptcy because of these fines. So what does this mean? The guys dig into their pockets filled with cash, and start another company and do it all over again.

How exactly does that work? I'm sure the IRS would be interested in talking to them about their financial practices. How is that even legal if the company is incorporated? I was under the impression you couldn't just move money back and forth between the business to shelter it from taxes or bankruptcy.

No surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not subprised in the slightest at this.

The FTC is now taking the same approach to spammers as they do telemarketers, in a theoretical sense.

They rather fine these companies just enough to get some money out of them but not shut down their business or cause them to go under. Just another revenue stream for the FTC.

It goes to show they could really care less about these companies sending out spam, they would rather just fine them and make money off of them.

Like I said in the subject, no suprise here. The FTC really has no compassion for what the consumer has to go through, if it's more money for them. they're all for it. If they were to actually shut down the business then they couldn't fine them anymore.

Hardly a condign punishment

[Jim in Buffalo]

Punishing a massive spam operation by fining them $475,000 is like punishing a murderous street gang by making them surrender a leather jacket. If anything, this is going to encourage more spam, since spammers will see how utterly light and inconsequential the punishments truly are.

Re:Misleading as hell

[Intron]

Worse yet. From the FTC report. The spammers made $2.4M but the fine is only $475,000. So they not only are still in business, but still profitable. The government just wanted to make sure that if people are being harassed, that they are in on it.

Treat spammers like drug traffickers

[Halo-]

The government needs to treat spammers like drug traffickers.

The FTC should hook up with the IRS to go after spammers.

Basically, if you're caught spamming the Feds come in and make you account for all of your income over the last year. Any money derived from spamming is forfeited, plus penalties. I'd also like to see the penalties weighted so that if the spammer gives up the identity of who paid him or her to spam, the penalty is reduced if that person is successfully prosecuted as well. This way the number of spammers and the companies which contract them get slapped.

Any legitimate business should be able to account for all its income. If a spammer can't prove his income is clean, it is no different than a drug trafficker having piles of cash around which just magically appeared. Anything which can't be documented as coming from a non-spam source should be considered profits of a criminal enterprise, and should get seized.

Re:Never mind the fine...

[Theatetus]

I want them to be sentenced to write (by hand) an apology to every person they've wronged...

I can see it now...

Hello. This is Mr. Spammer, a.k.a. Happy Dude. The court has ordered me to call everyone in town and say that I'm sorry for my telemarketing scams. (pause) I'm sorry. If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, please send one dollar to "Sorry Dude," 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. You have the power.