Good News and Bad News

MARKETERS BARELY GOT a chance to breathe a sigh of relief over the death of a do-not-e-mail bill in Illinois when two more fronts opened up in the battle to keep commercial e-mail free for legal adult-oriented content.

At deadline, it looked as if a Georgia bill would easily pass through the state Senate. Meanwhile, two Iowa lawmakers introduced an e-mail registry measure in that state's House and Senate modeled after the one in place in Michigan.

The proposals would enable parents and guardians to register minors' e-mail addresses and other contact points as off limits to messages containing content or links for products illegal for minors to view or buy.

Jointly dubbed The Iowa Kids No E-Contact Act, the bills would require marketers who want to include adult-oriented content in their outbound e-mail to scrub their lists against Iowa's registry once a month, starting in July 2007. The cost would be up to $3 per thousand addresses checked.

Utah charges $5 per thousand addresses screened, Michigan $7. Georgia legislators are considering a child-protection registry bill that would cost e-mailers as much as $10 per thousand addresses checked. That measure also would allow e-mailbox providers, individuals and the state attorneys general to sue for legal fees plus $5,000 per message, up to $250,000 each day the violations occur. Marketers contend that allowing consumers to sue would invite nuisance litigation.

Steve Warnstadt introduced the Iowa Kids No E-Contact Act in the state's Senate and Janet Petersen did so in the House. Both are Democrats.

“The do-not-call list has been an effective tool to keep telemarketers out of homes,” said Petersen in a statement. “The kids no e-contact list offers parents another tool besides Internet filters to help reduce the number of inappropriate messages and photos sent to their kids.”

The states are introducing these bills as a result of lobbying from Unspam LLC, the company that runs the registries in Michigan and Utah. Unspam president Matthew Prince is helping the states craft their do-not-e-mail bills.

According to a recent report, Prince claims lawmakers from California, Ohio, Texas, Florida, Missouri and New York have contacted Unspam seeking its assistance with similar measures.

Since it's difficult to know an e-mail recipient's location, marketers believe they must either stop sending e-mail with adult content or use each state's registry monthly. Many believe it won't take too many states to establish so-called child protection registries before it becomes too expensive to legally send, for example, wine and beer enthusiast newsletters to anyone.

Meanwhile, Rep. Jack Franks, D-IL, decided at the last minute to shelve a bill that would have established a so-called child-protection do-not e-mail registry in that state.

After an estimated 50 or 60 calls to his office and that of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Franks became convinced his bill was flawed enough that it shouldn't be introduced this session as planned.

DMA Dodges Registry Fight

The Direct Marketing Association did not join an effort supporting a lawsuit against Utah's child-protection no-e-mail registry to avoid the inevitable bad public relations, said president John A. Greco.

His comment marked the first time a DMA official has confirmed industry rumors that the organization is staying out of the Utah battle to avoid bad press.

“I've heard from a few people who were puzzled over why the DMA didn't join the amicus brief filed a couple of weeks ago by half a dozen advocacy organizations to raise concerns over Utah's legislation,” said Greco in a Yale Club luncheon address to the Direct Marketing Club of New York.

“We knew if we did participate it would get spun as ‘DMA attacks efforts to protect children.’ You know that's what the headline would've been. We believe such a perception would have been bad for our members.”

Pornography trade group Free Speech Coalition sued Utah to get the state's registry declared an unconstitutional limit on interstate commerce and/or in violation of the federal Can Spam Act. Several groups filed an amicus brief supporting the lawsuit. They include the E-mail Sender and Provider Coalition, the American Advertising Federation, the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the Association of National Advertisers, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology.
— Ken Magill