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.