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.

Misleading as hell

[RedOregon]

Surprise... government agency grabs headline, then contradicts itself.

From TFA headline:

The U.S. Federal Trade Comission said it has closed down a spam operation in California

Then in the third paragraph:

The settlement doesn't shut down the businesses

So they shut down the "spam operation" but didn't shut down "the business".

Fat lot of good that will do.

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!

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

[Theatetus]

Spam is hugely profitable, because your overhead is nil.

*shrug* I'm not sure how true that is. I used to work for a pretty big, just-barely-legal, bulk email farm. The overhead can actually be pretty high, since you have to keep several networks ready in case too many spam complaints get your upstream to shut you down (and keep in mind, these were mailings that the people did actually request and confirm to receive and had our physical address and phone number in every footer -- I can't imagine how many more complaints the really illegal shit must get). Unless you can talk your provider into making you the abuse contact for your block (at which point the stakes get really high, because you can go to jail if you start screwing around then), you have to move about once every six months.

We basically had two kinds of clients: people who essentially wanted a cheaper Lyris for their mailing list (things like music groups sending out their tour announcements, churches sending out their activities announcements, demagogic political blowhards sending out their vitriolic screeds, etc.), and people who were hawking products (everything from frozen crabcakes to cool little mouse-cord-holder-stands -- I still have one of those -- to "Get Free Money From the Government" books). The first kind of customer was pretty steady and almost never gave us spam complaints (we ended up giving them their own network). The second kind of customer not only generated a lot of spam complaints (and contractually had to pay us $100 for each one), but usually went broke after a few months. They got good receive and open rates, and even OK click-through, but people just didn't buy the shit.

I left the "industry" a while ago in a fit of conscience, but what I learned might be a bit sobering for those who suggest we attack the companies advertising via spam. If my experience is normal, that won't matter because they all go out of business anyways. There's money in bulk email for the companies sending out the email, and for their carriers (who get to charge more for pink contracts), but rarely if ever for the people selling stuff. It's just there's always some new jackass ready to take his place once a seller fails.

Never mind the fine...

[lightspawn]

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

and to memorize and pronounce the words made of random letters they include to try to evade spam filters

and to change their names to the one in the "from" field. That is, legally change their names to names such as... let me check my mailbox for a second... "Recipe 4Living", "Approval Dept", "Content Paradise", "Your Mngr. mosettamay", "Sr. Loan Specialist" and "Always Savings".

Now that's justice.

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.