WASHINGTON, Nov. 25 – The Senate passed a bill to curb junk commercial e-mail by voice vote on Tuesday, bringing national regulations on spam closer to reality.
The House passed a similar measure on Saturday by a vote of 392 to 5. Because the bills differ slightly, the House will have to vote again before the bill is sent to President Bush, who is expected to sign it.
Despite public demand for legislative relief, sponsors said the measure, which would take effect on Jan. 1, would not immediately cut off the deluge of junk e-mail messages that makes up more over half of all e-mail traffic.
“I don’t think you will see really a cutback in spam until someone is caught and prosecuted and they know for sure that we are serious about the enforcement of the law,” said Senator Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana and a sponsor of the bill, known as the “Can-Spam” Act.
The bill allows the federal government, state attorneys general and Internet service providers to bring lawsuits against bulk e-mailers who use deceptive practices like false e-mail addresses and subject lines. Enforcement officials estimate that over 90 percent of junk bulk e-mail comes from slightly more than 200 spammers.
Individuals would not have the right to take action against people who violate the law, despite a last-minute attempt by Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey, to add a provision that would provide for bounty hunters.
The bill outlaws several common spamming techniques, like using e-mail addresses gathered from the Internet or generated by computers. Under the legislation, bulk e-mailers could face up to $250 in penalties for each deceptive e-mail, up to a $6 million maximum fine. Violators could also face up to five years in jail.
The law would have limited reach overseas.
“You do have to get help,” said Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, who pushed for inclusion of a do-not-e-mail registry. “It’s using the same approach with international drug dealers or money launderers.”
Industry lobbying prompted legislators to create a single set of rules for e-mail advertisements, whether solicited or unsolicited. The law lumps e-mail messages from fly-by-night operations selling herbal impotence remedies together with those from airlines selling plane tickets to a pre-existing customer base. Messages from both would have to include legitimate e-mail addresses and a method for recipients to opt out.
Some state legislators criticized the bill, saying it would override state legislation, including a relatively strict bill in California that requires companies to have consumers’ consent before sending commercial e-mail.
“The bill doesn’t can spam, it legalizes it,” said Debra Bowen, a Democrat and a state senator from California who is a proponent of her state’s antispam bill. “It’s full of loopholes. It’s difficult to enforce. It’s weaker than many state laws.”
Earlier this month, eight state attorneys general from the Internet committee of the National Association of Attorneys General wrote a letter to the House saying that the legislation “creates so many loopholes, exceptions and high standards of proof, that it provides minimal consumer protections and creates too many burdens for effective enforcement.”
They, too, said the act could override stronger state consumer laws. They pointed out a potential loophole stemming from the definition of commercial e-mail as messages whose “primary purpose” is to promote a product, which could allow bulk e-mailers to argue that their messages have another main purpose. They also noted that the bill created definitions that were “unprecedented in consumer protection law,” including definitions for knowing deception, “good faith” efforts to comply and “reasonable practices” to avoid violations.
“The best line of defense for consumers are the antispam filters which are available commercially,” said Charlie Kennedy, a lawyer with Morrison & Foerster who specializes in telecommunications law.
By JENNIFER LEE
Published: November 26, 2003
The New York Times Online
