Sponsored Content WEBINAR: ELECTION 2008: E-mail Tips from a Political Insider   WEBINAR: Becoming the Illusionist: The Magic of Using "Brand" to Drive Response without Results Disappearing in the Process   WEBINAR: Score and Win Through Cooperation   TOOLS OF THE TRADE: Holiday's are prime-time for email marketing - maximize your ROI by getting to the inbox   ON DEMAND WEBINAR--MASTER CLASS: High Performance Online and Off-line Strategies for Large Scale Customer Acquisition   FREE WHITE PAPER - Direct Mail and the Internet Find any supplier you need - agencies, CRM, fulfillment, lists, e-commerce, paper, printers, telemarketing, and more. Featured Categories Lists and Data Telemarketing Database Marketing E-commerce Web Marketing Agency & Creative Services Print, Production & Paper Lists and Data Processing :: view all categories Get free access to more than 50,000 list data cards - one of the most comprehensive databases in the industry. >> Search Now DIRECT Buzz Blog Webinars Buyer's Guide Calculators JobZone ListFinder Promo Calendar Research Store E-Newsletters Print Magazine This Month in Direct Magazine Deal With It Direct had a full house for this year's list roundtable. Considering all the additional responsibilities on brokers' plates, that's impressive... See Full July Issue

Lost in the recent coverage of the $400,000-pluse settlement between online pornographer Cyber heat and the Federal Trade Commission were the ramifications for everyone else.

But as Thomas Hughes, a marketing and advertising lawyer with Hunton & Williams in Washington noted on his blog, they’re serious.

Last year, the FTC argued in an Arizona court that even though Cyberheat didn’t intend for affiliates to violate the Can Spam Act, didn’t know they violated it and didn’t attempt to avoid knowledge of their spamming, the company was still liable for their behavior.

The court ruled against the FTC, handing it what looked to be a defeat.

However, Cyberheat and the FTC settled, it was announced last week, with Cyberheat agreeing to some unusually tight restrictions on its affiliate program.

Besides agreeing to pay the relatively small amount of $413,000, Cyberheat also agreed to:

*Contractually require its affiliates to identify any subaffiliates they intend to use.

*Provide each affiliate a copy of the FTC’s order.

*Get a written agreement from each affiliate to comply with the order and the Can Spam Act.

*Contractually require each affiliate that intends to use e-mail marketing to provide Cyberheat the e-mail address from which the campaign will be sent, the subject line, the dates the e-mail will be sent, the e-mail addresses to which the e-mail will be sent, and a certification regarding how the addresses were gathered, all at least seven days before the campaign.

*Review each affiliate’s e-mail campaign for compliance with the Can Spam Act at least three days before the campaign and certify in writing it has done so.

*Require each consumer who signs up for Cyberheat’s services to indicate how they heard of the company. If they heard of it through e-mail, Cyberheat has agreed to monitor the affiliate that sent the e-mail for compliance with Can Spam.

Besides being highly restrictive to Cyberheat’s affiliate program, this settlement also places more responsibility on marketers overall to monitor their affiliates for spamming, according to Hughes.

“As I have said before, the Commission is increasingly skeptical of the ‘I did not know about it’ defense,” Hughes wrote on his blog at ReasonableBasis.com. “Companies that use affiliates to sell their products or services should conduct due diligence up front, have contractual provisions that require compliance with the specific statutes and regulations implicated by the affiliate's marketing, and should monitor their conduct to ensure compliance.”