At 10:31 -0400 on 06/17/2005, Hector Santos wrote about FYI:
Interesting CAM SPAM court case as it relates to 2821 :
CT. RULES FALSE CLAIMS IN EMAIL BODY FALLS OUTSIDE CAN-SPAM
BNA's Electronic Commerce & Law Report reports that a
federal court in Idaho has ruled that the CAN-SPAM Act does
not supply a cause of action for false information included
in the body of an allegedly unsolicited e-mail message. The
court concluded that the anti-spam law only covers false
information in email headers, not the text of the email.
Case name is Internet Access Service Providers LLC v. Real
Networks Inc. Article at
<http://pubs.bna.com/ip/BNA/eip.nsf/is/a0b0y5c4d6>
For a free trial to the source of this story, visit
http://www.bna.com/prodcuts/ip/eplr.htm
Since the act requires an Unsubscribe Link in the Message Body (as
well as other contact info), how can the judge rule that only header
info is covered. I think he needs a class in remedial reading (and
probably logic) based on this ruling.
As an example, if an invalid Unsubscribe URL Link appears in the
message body wouldn't that qualify as "false information"?