Go to Top

Spam Lawyers & Can-Spam Compliance

The sending of Spam has always been a high-risk proposition. Today, however, if you comply with the CAN-SPAM Act you can legitimately and legally send unsolicited email to third parties. As spam lawyers we make sure you are Can-Spam compliant with the many requirements of the act and provide you with a written legal opinion and guidance. We also represent you when you receive a spam lawsuit, or a civil or criminal investigation targets you, or an upstream ISP decides to cut off your bandwidth. Our focus as your spam lawyers is to get the matter resolved as quickly and economically as possible. We don’t just defend you…we find a solution to the problem. Unknown to most, the CAN-SPAM Act creates near strict liability for a company if a third-party vendor violates the act. If you get a subpoena for documents in a “John Doe” case, you may be the next defendant. The information you give to the plaintiff prior to retaining spam lawyers is often the basis for you becoming a defendant rather than working a problem out quietly.

Article by Internet Law Pioneer John Dozier:

Download PDF FileSpam: Your Affiliates Can Put You Out Of Business

Download Adobe Reader to view the PDF.

View Traverse Internet Law’s blog entries on recent developments in the law of spam:

As spam lawyers focused on Can-Spam compliance, we help you comply with state and federal laws, and we defend you if you have been hit with that spam lawsuit. Do you think simply because you are not actually sending out the email you are not a target or liable under the new federal law? Think again, and consider the instances in which these clients needed us as their spam lawyers, in some instances because they had not implemented Can-Spam compliance:

Spam Lawyers

  • One of our client’s “online marketing affiliates” sent spam. Our client’s affiliate agreement did not specifically prohibit the practice, and our client was added to a state class action lawsuit.
  • Our client is an application service provider (ASP) providing its services to a high volume spammer. AOL filed a spam lawsuit against our client.
  • Our client purchased software to send CAN-SPAM compliant email. The software program actually created false addresses, unknown to our client, and Microsoft came calling.
  • Our client was providing free websites in return for carrying advertising, but failed to consider the possibility that the websites could be used by spammers. Microsoft sued.
  • Our client was being investigated as a spammer and was receiving a huge volume of hate mail every day tying up his email system. Turns out a competitor was sending offensive spam out advertising our client’s services with a false header showing it was supposedly sent from our client.
  • Spamcop reported our client as a spammer, his ISP cut him off, but client had never sent any email to anyone other than his registered users requesting website update reports.
  • AOL sued our three clients claiming a conspiracy to violate state and federal spam laws by sending “spim” into its chat and instant messaging rooms. This was reportedly the first “spim” lawsuit in the US.
  • AOL sued our web hosting and web developer client as a co-conspirator with known major spammers.
  • An ISP obtained a $1 Billion judgment in Iowa Federal Court and the client retained us to attempt to defend subsequent efforts at collecting and to defend individuals sued.
  • AOL served a subpoena on our email lead broker client in an effort to build a case against the company.
  • Earthlink served a subpoena on our client as a target of a mortgage lead lawsuit it had already filed.
  • Earthlink sued our clients for conspiring with a Russian group that hacked into the ISP and sent email.
  • Microsoft brought a lawsuit against our software developer client alleging knowing conspiracy to provide support and assistance to spammers.
  • Our merchant client’s email service is terminated, and its server and mailing lists taken, by its ISP for violation of the user agreement and terms of service in sending allegedly unsolicited email.
  • We were retained by an employee of a major online merchant amid allegations that the entire email mailing list of the merchant had been compromised and used by our client to spam.
  • The FBI raided our client’s offices in a major international spammer investigation targeting our client.
  • AOL sued our software developer client for spamming and conspiracy by claiming, among other things, that the software management system our client engineered and built was knowingly used by spammers.
  • Our client was sued by AOL for acquiring AOL’s stolen mailing list and spamming off of it.
  • An ISP in Utah sued our client in state court for violation of state law for the actions of its affiliates.
  • Citizens in California sued our mortgage broker client in a class action claim alleging spam liability.
  • Our client was sued by Microsoft for direct email solicitations advertising its merchant site under state and federal laws.
  • A Washington state ISP sued our prominent online advertising agency for sending spam on behalf of clients of the firm.
  • A Virginia resident’s lawyer asserts a claim for sending spam under Virginia law against our California client.
  • Microsoft brought a lawsuit against our client for sending spam from his home computer.
  • Microsoft sued our web developer client for building a website that was used by spammers to sell products.
  • AOL sued our ISP client for permitting spammers to use the ISP to route bulk email to AOL’s servers.
  • The Federal Trade Commission sued our client alleging the use of “zombies” in sending out large volumes of sexually explicit email.
  • The Texas Attorney General sued our client, an employee and former executive of a company previously sued for alleged violations of state and federal spam laws and consumer protection acts.
  • A small ISP sued our client in Federal Court for CAN-SPAM violations alleging the use of falsified headers in mailings.
  • The Washington State Attorney General brought an action against our client for spam sent by third parties markeing our client’s services.
  • Our email marketing client’s affiliate sent a false “from” line email, and our client’s customer demanded compensation and terminated a long standing relationship.
  • Microsoft demanded that our client affiliate marketer stop using the MSN related email systems and alleging that the volume was, in effect, a denial of service attack against Microsoft.
  • Our commercial email client retained us to review and evaluate a broad range of contracts relating to its list provider and ESP.
  • Our ISP client needed protections structured to avoid spam liability for sending by third parties.
  • Commercial mailing operations insisted they were compliant with all laws, and our client retained us to confirm this claim.
  • We were retained to assist our client in responding to a claim of that our client had sent unlawful email in violation of state law.
  • A high volume commercial email campaign manager requested our assistance in reviewing its operations to confirm compliance and establish policies and procedures to insulate the company from liability due to third party misconduct.
  • We were retained to defend a company sued in Federal Court for alleged state spam law violations by a “spam filter” company.
  • Our client’s email system was used to send spam containing defamatory materials in the name of a prominent Hollywood businesswoman, and we defended a lawsuit filed pursuing our client as the sender.
  • An affiliate marketer created liability issues for our merchant client under state spam laws even though Can-Spam was followed by the affiliate.
  • Microsoft sued a commercial email sender for violations based upon state and federal laws.
  • Our client’s marketing affiliate sent commercial email and claims were asserted by recipients against our client for spam damages.
  • An online real estate related company retained us to evaluate whether it could use personally identifiable information in commercial email campaigns.
  • Issues arose when a client used post office addresses and carbon copying in conjunction with otherwise compliant email practices.
  • Our client’s affiliate marketers sent out spam and was pursued under the California strict liability law as a beneficiary of the spam.
  • Microsoft Corporation advised us that it was ready to sue a former client for commercial email violations relating not to traditional spam but alleged violations of Hotmail’s terms of use.
  • McAfee’s Siteadvisor.com gave our client a negative rating for spam and we were retained to review its programs and make sure the client was in compliance with email laws.
  • A national political party and its related political action committee retained us to assist them with using commercial email in accordance with the spam laws, particularly with respect to those state laws that do not have a “political purpose” exception.
  • A lawsuit was filed against our email list manager client claiming violations of the federal CanSpam Act although our client merely sold data.
  • An email list manager and email service provider hired us to assist with structuring an opt-out procedure that would reduce global opt outs across multiple client and product lines when a single opt out of one solicitation is received.
  • Our client was sued under the California spam statute for failing to follow a provision of the federal CanSpam Act.
  • The California spam ring filed a lawsuit against our entertainment industry client alleging failure to remove after an opt-out request.
  • Our client, an email service provider, was sued for sending spam and selling the plaintiff’s email address to spammers.

Of course, whether you are totally innocent, a little innocent, or truly a high volume illegal spammer, you need quality legal expertise and spam lawyers. Many situations can be avoided with the proper legal documents and Can-Spam compliance and a quality due diligence program in place. As spam lawyers we know the players, we know the lawyers, we know the law, we know the business practices, we know the technology, and we know the SOLUTIONS. After all, the Internet is all we do!

Spam lawyers Assure Can-Spam Compliance

Call us today at 877-849-0174 to schedule a consultation.

Leave a Reply