A ring of illegal mailers, allegedly responsible at one point for the largest volume of unsolicted mail on the internet, has recently been shut down in a joint effort by the Federal Trade Commission and New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairs. The international group, which went by several names, has long been under the radars of anti-spam organizations and under investigation by the FTC with assistance from security firm Marshall Software.

Recently, a federal court in Chicago handed down a decision to freeze the assets of the group and order it to shut down. The group is currently the subject of an investigation by the FBI, who have ordered search warrants in hopes of pursuing criminal charges. In addition, New Zealand authorities have imposed fines on the mailers. The group, with international ties in China, New Zealand, India and Australia, used massive bot-nets to send the bulk mail, which has been estimated by some to account for one third of all unsolicited mail.

Most of the offers promoted replicawatches, a variety of pharmaceuticals and male enhancement solutions. The FTC argues that the group is in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act for using false and deceptive advertising practices and lacking unsubscribe options. Furthermore, the supplements they sell have been investigated by the FDA and found to contain possibly dangerous ingredients. The FTC hopes shutting the group down will decrease the amount of illegal unsolicited mail in consuer inboxes.

For more on the FTC bust read the full NY Times article by Brad Stone HERE.

The FTC voted to accept settlement terms in a case they filed in October 2007 against Spear Systems Inc, alleging the company made false weight loss claims about its products in unsolicited emails. The emails were accused by the FTC of having false from lines, deceptive subject lines, and no working opt-out link.

The Spear defendants must pay a $29,000 fine and are barred from violating the CAN-SPAM Act and from making any unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of any food. The FTC is continuing litigation with Xavier Ratelle, another defendant named in the 2007 anti-spam case.

For more information visit the DM News Article by Dianna Dillworth here.

With an increase in concern over the online tracking of consumer behavior, many are calling for new privacy laws to be passed sooner rather than later. However, in a recent interview with the FTC’s director of consumer protection, Lydia B. Parnes, Saul Hansell discovered that new internet privacy legislation may not be the smartest approach for the FTC.

The main argument that a rush to legislation would be a mistake is that the internet advertising industry constantly changes and evolves, and passing laws that pertain to the industry at this particular moment may not be relevant or effective in enforcing privacy in the long term. Also, no one seems to know exactly which consumer dangers privacy legislation would be aimed at preventing. There is obvious concern over identity theft and misuse of personal data or medical records as a result of tracking.

Parnes compared privacy and tracking issues to the CAN-SPAM Act, which was not passed until 2003. It took legislators and the industry several years after the onslaught of spam to develop suitable regulations to match industry best practices. Through litigation trial and error, the FTC has been able to discover the limitations of CAN-SPAM. As a result, CAN-SPAM has undergone continuous legal review and has been updated accordingly. The FTC feels that a more effective way to promote compliance is to push for the industry to engage in voluntary self-regulation.

Visit the original article here:

NY Times: The FTC’s Bully Pulpit on Privacy by Saul Hansell. January 21, 2008.

The four new FTC CAN-SPAM regulations officially went into effect on Monday, July 7, forty-five days after they appeared in the Federal Register. The updated regs have multiple compliance implications for LashBack clients as well as the entire email marketing industry. The four new rules streamline the opt-out process for consumers and require multiple advertisers in messages to designate a single sender. In addition, they clarify a broader definition of the term “person” to include corporations and organizations, as well as validate p.o. boxes and private mail boxes as physical postal addresses.

The Four New CAN-SPAM Rules

Rule 1: A broad definition of the term “Person” is added beyond natural persons to include all business types and non-profits.

Rule 2: Establishes “Designated Sender” to Simplify Compliance for Multi-Advertiser Messages.

Rule 3: P.O. Boxes and Private Mailboxes Compliant with USPS Regulations Meet Physical Address Requirements.

Rule 4: Consumer’s Only Requirement for Opt-Out is His or Her Email Address and Opt-Out Preference. No fees can be charged. No other information requested to authenticate or process opt-out. No login or other road block may be placed in the opt-out process other than sending a reply message or visiting a single unsubscribe landing page on website to deliver opted-out email address for suppression.

LashBack encourages you to vistit the FTC’s website for more information on compliance and view the new CAN-SPAM updates appearing in detail in the Federal Register. Additionally, we’ve included a link to industry coverage on the new regs by Ken Magill and a MarketingSherpa Podcast explaining the new rules.