* Utah, Michigan try to protect minors from spam
The list of regulations to consider when thinking about messaging compliance continues to grow. You may have to worry about SEC rules, HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oxley, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, California’s SB 1386, the U.K. Data Protection Act and a number of other requirements, such as the CAN-SPAM Act. Add to this mix two new state laws that make it illegal to send certain types of e-mail to an address that can be accessed by those under the age of 18.
Michigan and Utah have both passed laws that went into effect earlier this month that make it illegal to send e-mail to children whose e-mail addresses are included on a “do not e-mail” list managed by each state government. Michigan’s law established the Children’s Protection Registry, a database of addresses much like the Federal Trade Commission’s “do not call” list. Under the Michigan law, anyone who sends e-mail advertising any of a variety of banned products or services – including obscene material and illegal drugs – to someone on the list can face fines up to $30,000 and up to three years in prison for multiple offenses. The law became effective July 1 and compliance must start by Aug. 1.
Utah’s law and children’s database registry also became effective July 1 and contains provisions similar to those in the Michigan law.
It’s difficult to know how effective either law will be at stopping spammers or legitimate e-mail marketers from sending spam to children, given the fact that neither law has even been in force for three weeks as of this writing. I suspect, however, that the laws will be relatively effective at preventing legitimate marketers from sending stuff to children for the simple reason that those who would comply with the law are legitimate. The effectiveness of the laws against spammers, however, is likely to be nil, since anyone who would market obscenity and illegal drugs via spam is unlikely to be overly concerned about staying on the right side of the law anyway. That said, I would certainly register children’s e-mail addresses with both states’ registries given the potentially significant upside potential of both laws.
I’d like to get your take on these laws and the notion of a “do not spam” list in general – please send me your thoughts at mailto:michael@ostermanresearch.com
