Can-Spam Act court ruling obliterates state anti-spam laws, activists say

Wednesday, November 29, 2006 by: Ben Kage
Tags: Supreme Court, CAN-SPAM, CAN-SPAM Act

eTrust Pro Certified

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
BACK INTO THE CLOSET: Why U.S. reporters are not allowed to write about rainbow events in nations where being gay is still condemned
Depopulation test run? 75% of children who received vaccines in Mexican town now dead or hospitalized
A family destroyed: Six-month-old dies after clinic injects baby with 13 vaccines at once without mother's informed consent
Biologist explains how marijuana causes tumor cells to commit suicide
INVESTIGATION: Three days before Dr. Bradstreet was found dead in a river, U.S. govt. agents raided his research facility to seize a breakthrough cancer treatment called GcMAF
BOMBSHELL: China and America already at war: Tianjin explosion carried out by Pentagon space weapon in retaliation for Yuan currency devaluation... Military helicopters now patrolling Beijing
Companies begin planting microchips under employees' skin
BAM! Chipotle goes 100% non-GMO; flatly rejecting the biotech industry and its toxic food ingredients
ECONOMIC SLAVERY FOR ALL: While we were distracted with the Confederate flag flap, Congress quietly forfeited our entire economic future via fast-track trade authority
NJ cops bust teenagers shoveling snow without a permit
McDonald's in global profit free fall as people everywhere increasingly reject chemically-altered toxic fast food
March Against Monsanto explodes globally... World citizens stage massive protests across 38 countries, 428 cities... mainstream media pretends it never happened
Italian court rules mercury and aluminum in vaccines cause autism: US media continues total blackout of medical truth
SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision may have just legalized the concealed carry of loaded firearms across all 50 states, nullifying gun laws everywhere
Orthorexia Nervosa - New mental disorder aimed at people who insist on eating a clean diet
Vicious attack on Dr. Oz actually waged by biotech mafia; plot to destroy Oz launched after episode on glyphosate toxicity went viral
Nearly every mass shooting in the last 20 years shares one surprising thing? and it's not guns
Holistic cancer treatment pioneer Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez dies suddenly; patients mourn the loss of a compassionate, innovative doctor who helped thousands heal from cancer
(NaturalNews) The federal Can-Spam act was passed in 2003 to protect consumers from unsolicited sales and marketing emails, but a court ruling against a man who was counter sued for allegedly defaming a company that spammed him has all but crippled state spam laws, say anti-spam activists.

The Can-Spam act defines spam as "any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose)." Anti-spam activist Mark Mumma received what he felt was such an email from Omega World Travel, advertising cruise vacations.

After Mumma contacted Omega, asking to have domains removed from their mailing list, he continued to receive emails from them after the Can-Spam deadline of 10 days. He also found that the "from" email address was not active, so Mumma posted on his web site that Omega was a spammer and threatened to sue the company under the statutes of his native Oklahoma.

However, Omega countersued Mumma and his company MummaGraphics for $3.8 million, citing defamation, and the federal Can-Spam laws worked in their favor. While a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court admitted that Omega's emails might have had false internet addresses and nonworking "from" addresses, they decided that the messages were not illegal under Can-Spam. They said that the emails he received after the 10-day deadline were "immaterial errors" and that Mumma's strict reading of the law is "not compatible with the structure of the Can-Spam Act as a whole," wrote Judge James Harvie Wilkinson III in a Nov. 17 opinion piece.

"The Can-Spam Act preempts MummaGraphics' claims under Oklahoma's statutes," wrote Wilkinson. He added that the Can-Spam Act "addresses 'spam' as a serious and pervasive problem, but it does not impose liability at the mere drop of a hat."

"I'm shocked and amazed by the decision by the 4th Circuit," said Mumma. "I'm thinking maybe it's time to retire as the anti-spam guy. Maybe I need to let the spammers rule the world."

"The Can-Spam Act essentially protects the e-mailer; it doesn't protect us," he said. "I don't agree with the court's decision, but I'm not going to challenge it. I'm done. They completely ran me out of money. I'm broke."

The ruling did not find on the defamation accusations, which experts say will probably go to trial. A preliminary ruling by a judge did throw out Omega's accusations of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unauthorized use of likeness on Mumma's post, which he has now deleted.

Still, anti-spam activists are saying that the ruling is a setback for efforts to control the internet nuisance, and Can-Spam is basically nullifying state laws that attempt to control spam by illegalizing fraudulent or deceptive electronic communications. Additionally, Congress usually overrule state laws that take a stricter approach than Can-Spam in regards to spam control.

"This court ruling confirms exactly what I predicted three years ago," said Mike Adams, president of Arial Software, outspoken anti-spam activist, and creator of the "Spam. Don't Buy it!" public education campaign found at "The federal Can-Spam law gutted meaningful anti-spam legislation that was about to be passed in California, thus protecting spammers from liability, even in cases where they are clearly sending spam."

Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman said that the 4th Circuit ruling's preempting of Oklahoma state law is a setback for anti-spam activists, and David Sorkin, a law professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago, said the ruling "vindicates those of us who view Can-Spam as pointless and potentially dangerous legislation."

"I consider Can-Spam dangerous because by regulating spam without prohibiting it, the law effectively legitimizes spam," Sorkin said.


Follow real-time breaking news headlines on
Supreme Court at
Join over four million monthly readers. Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time.
comments powered by Disqus
Take Action: Support by linking back to this article from your website

Permalink to this article:

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):

Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use OK, cite with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Colloidal Silver

Advertise with NaturalNews...

Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Advertise with NaturalNews...


Sign up for the FREE Natural News Email Newsletter

Receive breaking news on GMOs, vaccines, fluoride, radiation protection, natural cures, food safety alerts and interviews with the world's top experts on natural health and more.

Join over 7 million monthly readers of, the internet's No. 1 natural health news site. (Source:

Your email address *

Please enter the code you see above*

No Thanks

Already have it and love it!

Natural News supports and helps fund these organizations:

* Required. Once you click submit, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free registration. Your privacy is assured and your information is kept confidential. You may unsubscribe at anytime.