FTC solicits CAN-SPAM feedback

The FTC (US Federal Trade Commission) is soliciting comments on CAN-SPAM legislation:
A. General Issues

1. Is there a continuing need for the Rule? Why or why not?

2. What benefits has the Rule provided to consumers? What evidence supports the asserted benefits?

3. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase its benefits to consumers?

(a) What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?
(c) How would these modifications affect the benefits to consumers?

4. What impact has the Rule had on the flow of truthful information to consumers and on the flow of deceptive information to consumers?

5. What significant costs, if any, has the Rule imposed on consumers? What evidence supports the asserted costs?

6. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce any costs imposed on consumers?

(a) What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the benefits provided by the Rule?

7. What benefits, if any, has the Rule provided to businesses, including small businesses? What evidence supports the asserted benefits?

8. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase its benefits to businesses, including small businesses?

(a) What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?
(c) How would these modifications affect the benefits to consumers?

9. What significant costs, if any, including costs of compliance, has the Rule imposed on businesses, including small businesses? What evidence supports the asserted costs?

10. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce the costs imposed on businesses, including small businesses?

(a) What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the benefits provided by the Rule?

11. What evidence is available concerning the degree of industry compliance with the Rule?

12. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to account for changes in relevant technology or economic conditions? What evidence supports the proposed modifications?

13. Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations? If so, how?

(a) What evidence supports the asserted conflicts?
(b) With reference to the asserted conflicts, should the Rule be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?

B. Specific Issues

1. Should the Commission modify the Rule to expand or contract the categories of messages that are treated as transactional or relationship messages?

(a) Why or why not?
(b) What evidence supports such a modification?
(c) How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?
(d) How would this modification affect the benefits to consumers?

2. As discussed above, the Rule tracks the CAN-SPAM Act in prohibiting the sending of commercial email to a recipient more than ten business days after the recipient opts out. Should the Commission modify the Rule to reduce the time-period for processing opt-out requests to less than ten business days?

(a) Why or why not?
(b) What evidence supports such a modification?
(c) How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?
(d) How would this modification affect the benefits to consumers?

3. Should the Commission modify the Rule to specify additional activities or practices that constitute aggravated violations?

(a) Why or why not?
(b) What evidence supports such a modification?
(c) How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?
(d) How would this modification affect the benefits to consumers?

The press release and the entire notice are available on the FTC website.
Comments can be submitted by post or online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/canspamrulereview/. Comments will be made public at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments.
Wherever you are in the email ecosystem any changes are going to affect you. Think about providing comment, especially if you can back it up with data or experience.

Permission trumps good metrics
Delete or read?

Related Posts

Mailbox tools are a security risk

On Sunday the NYTimes published an article about Uber’s CEO. One of the pieces of information that came out of that article is services like unroll.me sell information they scrape out of emails sent to their users.

Read More

April 2016: The Month in Email

We are finishing up another busy month at WttW. April was a little nutty with network glitches, server crashes, cat woes, and other disruptions, but hopefully that’s all behind us as we head into May. I’ll be very busy in May as well, speaking at Salesforce Connections in Atlanta and the Email Innovation Summit in Las Vegas. Please come say hello if you’re attending either of these great events.
April2016MiE
Speaking of great events, I participated in two panels at EEC16 last month. We had a lot of great audience participation, and I met many wonderful colleagues. I wrote up some more thoughts about the conference here. I also had a nice conversation with the folks over at Podbox, and they’ve posted my interview on their site.
In the Podbox interview, as always, I talked about sending mail people want to receive. It always makes me roll my eyes a bit when I see articles with titles like “5 Simple Ways to Reach the Inbox”, so I wrote a bit about that here. In addition to sending mail people want to receive, senders need to make sure they are collecting addresses and building lists in thoughtful and sustainable ways. For more on this topic, check out my post on list brokers and purchased lists.
These same not-so-simple tricks came up again in my discussion of Gmail filters. Everyone wants a magic formula to reach the inbox, and — sorry to burst your bubble — there isn’t ever going to be one. And this is for a good reason: a healthy filter ecosystem helps protect all of us from malicious senders and criminal activity. The email channel is particularly vulnerable to fraud and theft. The constant evolution of filters is one way mail providers can help protect both senders and recipients — but it can be challenging for senders and systems administrators to keep up with this constant evolution. For example, companies sometimes even inadvertently filter their own mail!
I also wrote a bit about how B2B spam is different from B2C spam, and how marketers can better comply with CAN SPAM guidelines in order to reach the inbox. We also republished our much-missed friend and colleague J.D. Falk’s DKIM Primer, which is extremely useful information that was at a no-longer-active link.
One of my favorite posts this month was about “dueling data”, and how to interpret seemingly different findings around email engagement. We also got some good questions for my “Ask Laura” column, where we cover general topics on email delivery. This month we looked at “no auth/no entry” and the Microsoft Smartscreen filter, both of which are useful things to understand for optimizing delivery.
Finally, we are pleased to announce that we’ve joined the i2Coalition, an organization of internet infrastructure providers. They posted a nice introduction on their blog, and we look forward to working with them to help advocate and protect these important technical infrastructures.

Read More

Things you need to read

The email solicitation that made me vow to never work with this company again. When sending unsolicited email, you never know how the recipient is going to respond. Writing a public blog post calling you out can happen.
The 2016 Sparkies. Sparkpost is looking for nominations for their email marketing awards. Win a trip to Insight 2016!
5 CAN SPAM myths. Send Grid’s General Counsel speaks about CAN SPAM myths. Personally, asking for an email to unsubscribe is annoying. I never know if the unsubscribe request worked or not. Give me a link any day.
The most misunderstood statistic in email marketing. A good discussion of why raw complaint rates isn’t the metric the ISPs use, and how it can mislead folks about their email program.
Office 365 is expanding it’s DKIM signing. Terry Zink discusses the upcoming changes to how Office365 handles DKIM signatures. This is exactly the kind of changes I was talking about in my 2016 predictions post – background changes that are going to affect how we authenticate email. He even specifically calls out whether or not a particular signature is DMARC aligned or not.

Read More