Silverpop - Can-Spam Revisited
It appears you are using an older version of your browser. This site was developed to be progressive and future-compatible. Please take a minute to upgrade your browser for an optimal experience.
Skip to content
  • Subscribe:

Can-Spam Revisited

blog post thumbnail image
by: Will Schnabel (@wschnabel)
05 April 2007

Yesterday, I read an interesting, and potentially daunting, column highlighting possible changes in Can Spam 2003 Act. A Congressional committee may begin hearings to determine if changes are necessary. In January, Federal Trade Commission chair Deborah Platt Majoras received a letter from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce expressing concern that the legislation may not be doing as much as it should to control spam. According to Magill in this report, Majoras had until early February to respond, but the FTC’s response is not public yet.



So what has been successful about Can-Spam? It’s taken the place of a labyrinth of state legislation that could have tied marketers in many knots. Under Can-Spam, marketers can make an honest mistake but it also gives officials the opportunity to take legal action against criminals who actually responsible for the unwanted email that pollutes the internet. In comparison to Australia's more stringent spam legislation which involves opt-ins, it’s been more successful in prosecuting offenders. As this issue may come up before Congress in the next few months, marketers need to be willing to stand up for how Can-Spam has been successful.




    Sign up Now!

    Subscribe to IBM Marketing Cloud's Digital Marketer Newsletter!

    Popular Categories

    Top 5 Posts


    To give you the best experience, this website uses cookies.

    Continuing to use this website means that you consent to our using cookies. You can change your cookie settings in your browser at any time.
    Find out more here or by clicking the Cookie Policy link at the bottom of this page.