Does California's Anti-Spam Bill Go Too Far?
from the might-be-too-tough dept
I am very much against spam, as most Techdirt readers know quite well. However, in reading the details of the new California anti-spam bill, I’m concerned. Spam foes are saying it’s great because it doesn’t allow any “loopholes” such as putting an “ADV” at the beginning. However, it looks as though the bill may go too far. It says that unsolicited email is banned, period. All unsolicited email. Today alone, I’ve received at least 3 emails which I do not consider spam – but which were “unsolicited advertising material.” They were promoting various sites, and asking if Techdirt would link to them. They were personalized, and clearly not spam, but from people who honestly wanted Techdirt to link to their own sites. In theory, after January first, I could sue anyone who sends me such an email for a spam violation. Similarly, should I send someone an email to check out Techdirt, I could be sued. The bill would make a lot more sense if it banned bulk emails. However, as it stands, it will make it nearly impossible to send an email as a business entity to someone you haven’t first spoken to. I’m all for ways to stop spam – but this one includes some pretty high costs.
Comments on “Does California's Anti-Spam Bill Go Too Far?”
Another Ridiculous California Law?
Governor Davis signing a ridiculous bill in order to pander to some segment of voters before the recall election?!? Say it isn’t so!
Re: Another Ridiculous California Law?
well, recalls are a bit weird since we did elect him. If he was doing something like Nixon, then yes, we would have the right to impeach but just because we don’t agree in his policy is no reason to recall,… but I digress.
I agree, this is going a bit too far. Just think of the legal costs that will be pushed back to the tax payers for all the law suits that will be going on. Like telemarketers, there needs to be some way to protect consumers from too much junk hitting them but this is not the way.