Posted on January 24th, 2011 at 6:23 pm by Cari Birkner
A recent appeals court ruling on Hypertouch v. Valueclick in California provided a lengthy explanation that advertisers using affiliates to drive traffic via email are ultimately liable for the actions of their affiliates, whether they know about them or not. The court, with it’s strict interpretation of advertiser liability, attempts to force advertisers to take a greater role in monitoring the activities of their affiliates. As a company that specializes in providing affiliate compliance data, LashBack advocates for monitoring not only to comply with Spam statutes, but to protect sustainable ROI in email.
In addition, the decision states that California’s own spam statute preempts CAN-SPAM. Though it is likely to be appealed, we’ve never seen a published opinion that so clearly illustrates the need for advertisers to use LashBack and complementary tracking services as part of their compliance processes. Monitoring the activities of your affiliates and monitoring any business process that drives revenue is essential to protecting your business. Read more of the details on Eric Goldman’s Technology & Marketing Law Blog.