4 ms·
Edit: I missed the transactional part here. Transactional emails are excluded from CAN-SPAM. There's a test to figure out which is which: http://www.the-dma.org
by morganb180 13y ago
Edit: I missed the transactional part here. Transactional emails are excluded from CAN-SPAM. There's a test to figure out which is which: http://www.the-dma.org/press/PrimaryPurposeFactSheet.pdf http://www.the-dma.org/press/PrimaryPurposeFactSheet.pdf
It's shitty UX regardless of whether it's a violation of law, IMO.
Original: It's a violation of CAN-SPAM law to put unsubscribe behind a login process. Asking for a password violates the requirement that no additional PII except for the email be required to process the opt-out.
From the FTC:
Honor opt-out requests promptly. Any opt-out mechanism you offer must be able to process opt-out requests for at least 30 days after you send your message. You must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within 10 business days. You can’t charge a fee, require the recipient to give you any personally identifying information beyond an email address, or make the recipient take any step other than sending a reply email or visiting a single page on an Internet website as a condition for honoring an opt-out request.
http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-com...
- hbien 13y agoI know this is true for mass marketing emails, but is it the same for transactional emails also?
- logn 13y agoTransactional emails are generally exempt. Explained at http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-complia... and excerpt below: A. What matters is the “primary purpose” of the message. To determine the primary purpose, remember that an email can contain three different types of information: 1. Commercial content – which advertises or promotes a commercial product or service, including content on a website operated for a commercial purpose; 2. Transactional or relationship content – which facilitates an already agreed-upon transaction or updates a customer about an ongoing transaction; and 3. Other content – which is neither commercial nor transactional or relationship. If the message contains only commercial content, its primary purpose is commercial and it must comply with the requirements of CAM-SPAM. If it contains only transactional or relationship content, its primary purpose is transactional or relationship. In that case, it may not contain false or misleading routing information, but is otherwise exempt from most provisions of the CAN-SPAM Act.
- morganb180 13y agoYou're right—read the thread too fast. What's more interesting to me, is how many of these so called "transactional" emails actually pass the test? More on that here: http://www.the-dma.org/press/PrimaryPurposeFactSheet.pdf http://www.the-dma.org/press/PrimaryPurposeFactSheet.pdf
- morganb180 13y agoI read the thread too fast. Transactional emails are excluded under CAN-SPAM. But there are many times that "transactional emails" going out contain marketing/commercial content. There's a test for those emails to see if they pass: http://www.the-dma.org/press/PrimaryPurposeFactSheet.pdf http://www.the-dma.org/press/PrimaryPurposeFactSheet.pdf Many "transactional" emails probably fail the above test. It's shitty UX to make you login to opt-out, even if it's not against the law.
- lutusp 13y ago> I know this is true for mass marketing emails, but is it the same for transactional emails also? That depends -- have you ever signed up with the sender? If so, you are asking to be spammed. When a company requires a signup, they are breaking the law, therefore you must not sign up. By signing up, you make the spam legitimate. If they send you an unsolicited e-mail, they are criminals. If they require a signup to opt out, they are criminals. But if you sign up, they aren't. That's why they want you to sign up.
- degenerate 13y agoWhat I don't understand is that many big companies have been forcing you to login to unsubscribe for years, without penalty. Ex: American Airlines. Also FBO.GOV forces you to login, which is mildly amusing because it's the government itself.
- wahnfrieden 13y agoWelcome to unenforced law.
- code_duck 13y agoFox News and related entities are serious transgressors here. I've clicked unsubscribe links only to be taken to signup pages full of ads, which had nothing to do with the mailing list.
- alextingle 13y agoCan't you sue then in the small claims court for that?
- code_duck 13y agoIf I can, then a class action could probably be substantiated. They deserve it - this mailing list shenanigan was among the most egregious I've ever seen.
- Daniel_Newby 13y agoThat law is plainly unconstitutional. Besides which, anyone who trusts the privacy or authenticity of email is a fucking retard.
- fibbery 13y agoWhat constitutional right is being violated here?
- Daniel_Newby 13y agoNo right is being violated. It is a breach of duty: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Even ignoring the first amendment, there is no enabling clause that grants the general power to regulate communication.
- pbhjpbhj 13y agoAre you saying that the CAN-SPAM act is abridging someone's freedom of speech? Whose? You may have the right to speak but you don't have a right to force the populous to listen. Communication is two way, spam is one-way.
- Daniel_Newby 13y agoThe person sending the spam. You have the right to expose people to communications with no Congressional control whatever. Congress shall make no law. You may shout on a street corner, you may set up a PA system until your neighbors are driven to madness, you may place pornography on a billboard, etc. Congress can do nothing to stop it.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago>"You may shout on a street corner, you may set up a PA system until your neighbors are driven to madness, you may place pornography on a billboard, etc. Congress can do nothing to stop it." // Are you trolling. You consider the constitutional right to free speech to encompass things like setting up a PA in public that is so loud it physically harms people? It's not a right to amplified speech, nor "free shouting".