Proxy registrations and commercial email

Yesterday the law firm Venable, LLP published a document discussing the recent California appellate court decision in Balsam v. Trancos. Their take is that commercial email that contains a generic from line and is sent from a proxied domain is a violation of the California Business and Professions Code § 17529.5(a)(2).

The Trancos decision affects marketers using email to drive traffic to their websites, and the companies they hire, nationwide. The greatest impact this decision has is that each commercial email advertisement must have, in the from line, either a domain name that is registered to the sender which can be determined by performing a WHOIS look-up, or the name of the sender or marketer on whose behalf the email was sent. Therefore, marketers can no longer send commercial email that contains both a generic from line and is sent from a proxy/privately registered domain name. Therefore, In light of this development, and the substantial similarities between B&P Code § 17529.5(a)(2) and CAN-SPAM, marketers nationwide using commercial email advertisements must now revise and update their email protocols, and ensure they are compliant with this latest development in anti-spam law.

There’s a lot of spam sent from fake domains, like those I posted about in Email Fingerprinting. Those particular spammers are still spamming with 40+ emails already today from various addresses at ergada.net. None of them tell me who is actually sending the mail and that domain, and all the domains that spammer uses, are hidden behind privacy protection.
What kind of senders are going to be affected by this? A lot of fairly well known brands are hiring spammers (or hiring companies that hire spammers) to send acquisition mail for them.
I have long said that commercial companies should not use privacy protection in their whois registration. A business should not hide their identity and their contact information, period. I’m just glad some courts are finally recognizing that.

Related Posts

Supreme Court declines to hear anti-spam case

Yesterday the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal for Virginia v. Jaynes. This means that the Virginia state supreme court ruling overturning the Virginia anti-spam law currently stands.
Jeremy Jaynes was a well known spammer who went under the name Gavin Stubberfield. He was pretty famous in anti-spammer circles for sending horse porn spam. In 2003 he was arrested under the Virginia state anti-spam statute. He was initially convicted but the conviction was overturned on appeal.
Ethan Ackerman has blogged about this case, including a recap today.
Venkat Balasubramani has also blogged about this case.
Mickey Chandler has the docs.
John Levine weighed in.
News Articles: CNN, Washington Post, CNET

Read More

CA court requires sender identification on emails

Venkat analyzes the appeals court decision in Balsam v. Trancos, Inc.. In this case the appeals court decided that emails have to identify some actual person or entity they are sent by or from. Emails that do not identify the sender are in violation of the California anti-spam statute.
Venkat talks about all the reasons he thinks this is a problematic ruling, and the CA courts and anti-spam activists certainly have their share of bad rulings. I’m less convinced. The crux of the case seems to be that the advertiser used a number of random domains to hide the responsible party for an email. Rotating domains is a very, very common spammer tactic that is specifically a way to avoid domain based filters.
I understand Venkat’s concern but as someone who gets a lot of these spams I think the court is certainly ruling within the spirit of the CA statute. These mailers are using random domains to avoid filters and mislead recipients as to the source of the mail. Even if the domains are legitimately owned by the advertiser, they are usually hidden behind privacy protection and give the recipient no real information about who is sending the mail.
Another interesting point is the court speaking out against privacy registration. Personally, I don’t think any business should ever hide their domain registration behind privacy protection. If you’re a business, then you should stand up and give real contact information. I know it can be scary, particularly for people working out of their home, but if you’re a real business, you need to have an address registered with your state. Furthermore, if you’re a business sending email, all that email must contain a physical postal address. Your address already needs to be public, and including that in whois records isn’t actually going to change anything.

Read More

Yahoo awarded $610 million

The Federal district court in New York awarded Yahoo $610 million dollars in a suit they filed in 2008.

Read More