fees may also be assessed at the discretion of the court. Violations of the prohibited actions defined in the Act are viewed as a violation of the unfair deceptive act or practice in S.18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B). This piece of legislation adopts a user-protectionist stance against direct and indirect collection of information.
The Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Enhancement Act (HR 237 IH), Jan. 20, 2001, is a comprehensive piece of legislation that is designed to “protect the privacy of consumers who use the Internet” (1). The Internet Privacy Act places restrictions on commercial Website owners with respect to the collection of information that is personally identifiable. There are two main provisions of the Act which maintains that no commercial Web site operator may collect personally identifiable information unless providing:
1) notice to the user on the website in accordance with the requirements of subsection (b); and
2) an opportunity to that user to limit the use for marketing purposes, or disclosure to third parties of personally identifiable information collected that is:
A) not related to provision of the products or services provided by the website; or
B) not required to be disclosed by law.
The Act also provides for inconsistencies between itself and state statutes. No state or local government may impose any punishment on commercial operators for violating the provisions of the Act in any way that is more severe or inconsistent with the penalties proscribed by the federal Act. A violation of the provisions of the Act is considered a violation of an unfair or deceptive practices in or affection commerce as defined by S.18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commissions Act (15 U.S.C. 57(a)(1)(B)). The Act also mandates that noncompliance with S2(a) or (b) is a violation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1818), the Federal Credit Union ...