Law Provides Relief For The Spammed

“Reverse the aging process!” declares the first message in the e-mail in-box.

“You’ve been selected for a free trip!” says another.

“Pay off everything!” “Real university diplomas!” “Down and dirty really hot action!” “Lose weight quick!” “Hot adult fun!” “Never worry about debt again!” “Lose 2-13 inches in one hour, 100 percent guaranteed!”

And to top them all off, there’s this one: “Use as often as you like! It’s almost FREE!”

Unsolicited bulk e-mail, commonly nicknamed spam, doesn’t just bug computer users across the state. It also bugs Idaho Attorney General Al Lance, state lawmakers and Gov. Dirk Kempthorne.

Lance heard so many complaints from Idahoans that this year, he proposed a new law to relieve the spammed. Lawmakers signed on, and Kempthorne signed it into law. It takes effect today.

The new law won’t bring an end to the unsolicited bulk e-mail messages that fill many people’s in-boxes. But, said Brett DeLange, head of consumer protection for Lance’s office, “We think it’ll help.”

Idaho is the 18th state to try to regulate spam, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Washington passed a law two years ago to regulate misleading e-mail subject lines and other misrepresentations, although the law has been overturned in court. Other states, such as Colorado, require spams to be labeled as ads, and some, like Nevada, have passed laws similar to Idaho’s new one.

Here’s how it works:

Anyone sending unsolicited, bulk commercial e-mail to Idaho residents must include a legitimate return e-mail address, so Idahoans who don’t want the messages can respond and ask to be removed from the mailing list. Failure to include that legitimate return address violates the Idaho Consumer Protection Act.

If an Idahoan has asked to be removed but the messages continue, that’s also a violation. If the mailers are caught, the victims can sue to collect civil damages from the senders of $1,000, or $100 for each e-mail, whichever is greater.

“People don’t want to be bothered by these messages,” DeLange said.

The system isn’t foolproof. Some anonymous senders evade recognition.

“There are certain ways to try to track people down, but I’m sure there’ll be instances where there’s no way to identify who sent the e-mail,” DeLange said. “I don’t know what there will be to do, law enforcementwise.”

The attorney general’s office is hoping the spam law will have the same effect as an unsolicited fax law Idaho enacted about five years ago. That law flat out bans the sending of unsolicited commercial fax advertisements to Idahoans. People who get the unwanted fax ads forward them to the attorney general’s consumer protection unit, and that office goes after the senders.

Most violators are out-of-state operators who don’t know Idaho has outlawed the practice, DeLange said, so a warning usually stops the fax flow. There have been half a dozen enforcement actions under that law, he said.

Most of the senders have settled their cases, agreeing to pay between $500 and $1,500.

“That’s something of a model for what I see here” with the spam law, DeLange said.

The spam law is a little less direct. Sending spam that includes a legitimate return e-mail address, and complying with requests to remove recipients, would still be legal. That’s partly because junk e-mail costs its recipients less than junk faxes do, in terms of paper, ink, and tying up a phone line and fax machine, DeLange said.

Idahoans who receive unwanted spam should respond with a request to be removed from the mailing list, and should print out and save both the original message and their request. If they receive additional mailings, those also should be printed out.

To file a complaint, send those items along with a letter to Attorney General, Attn: Consumer Protection Unit, P.O. Box 83720, Boise, 83720-0010. A complaint form is available on the Internet from the attorney general’s web site, but it must be printed out and mailed in. To find the form, go to www2.state.id.us/ag/consumer/forms/consform.htm.

DeLange said the office isn’t yet set up to receive the complaints online.

Washington’s law was overturned in March as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause, which says regulating interstate commerce is the federal government’s role. But that case is being appealed.

Three weeks ago, a California law regulating spam also was declared unconstitutional because of the commerce clause. Federal legislation on the issue is pending in Congress, including a measure with provisions similar to Idaho’s.

Said DeLange, “Once again, the states are taking the lead and setting the example.”