In Lisa Bowman’s Agencies Warn SARS Spammers, the author discusses the recent warnings provided by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to 48 Web sites that offer merchandise claiming it will protect people against the deadly respiratory syndrome. Spam, unsolicited email advertisements, and fraudulent email scams have been the focus of recent efforts by the FTC to crack down on cyber crime. As Bowman (2003) reports, “The SARS-related claims are just the latest example of scam artists trying to profit off of news headlines” (1).
There are a number of possible tort and criminal issues related to this case. The 106th, 107th, and 108th Congress have proposed a variety of legislation pertaining to email. However, no federal legislation has yet been enacted that pertains to spam or unsolicited electronic mail. This may soon change as the 108th Congress is currently considering legislation aimed at putting controls on unsolicited electronic mail. The primary bill being considered by Congress is the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (S. 877). This legislation proposes such limits as private right of action, an opt-out policy required in all emails, the abbreviation ADV in the subject line of all advertisements, and others measures.
Computer users, privacy advocates, Internet Service Providers (ISP), and Internet companies like AOL have lobbied Congress to pass legislation controlling spam. From jamming in-boxes with unsolicited mail, to slowing down computer processing due to video and images and clogging ISPs spammers have been taken to court by companies like AOL and spurred most states to pass spam legislation. South Dakota’s (S.37-24-6) An Act is designed to regulate unsolicited electronic commerce. The Act prohibits sending email that misrepresents its origin or contains false or misleading information in its subject line. So too, unsolicited commercial email messages from adult Web site...