s must state the subject line with “ADV:ADLT”. Many others states have similar legislation. Tennessee’s spam legislation also requires that unsolicited commercial email messages include opt-out instructions and contact information.
Some individuals have brought suit against spammers by claiming that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 U.S.C. S227) is broadly defined and includes email. In Aronson v. Bright-Teeth Now (57 PA D. & C., 4th 1, PA Com. Pl. June 19, 2002), plaintiff sued under 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(C) which provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person with the United States...to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine”. Considering that many computers are connected to the Internet over phone lines and people receive electronic Faxes as email with attachments, it is not such a broad stretch to consider using such legislation which permits plaintiffs to recover at least $500 in damages for each violation.
The SARS spam case brings up other important issues. One pertains to truth in advertising legislation, and the other pertains to unsubstantiated claims legislation. The FTC already successfully filed suit against Met-RX for advertisements on the Internet and in email that made unsubstantiate
...