(Law) Revisiting Can-Spam for good reason
Latest posts | Feed | By Mark Brownlow
There are many things that make you go "hmmmm." This article from Quinn Jalli is one of them.
Marketers understand the requirements of Can-Spam legislation based on the text of the law, plus various guidelines published intermittently by the FTC.
But the recent court cases brought by the FTC under Can-Spam include more insights into how that law is interpreted.
And these insights are likely to raise a few eyebrows. Quinn points out the relevance of the court cases to various email marketing practices, such as subject lines and opt-out wording.
And reveals that what you may have thought was a perfectly legitimate practice...well...isn't.
Especially if you use forward-to-a-friend facilities to spread the word. Take a look.
Marketers understand the requirements of Can-Spam legislation based on the text of the law, plus various guidelines published intermittently by the FTC.
But the recent court cases brought by the FTC under Can-Spam include more insights into how that law is interpreted.
And these insights are likely to raise a few eyebrows. Quinn points out the relevance of the court cases to various email marketing practices, such as subject lines and opt-out wording.
And reveals that what you may have thought was a perfectly legitimate practice...well...isn't.
Especially if you use forward-to-a-friend facilities to spread the word. Take a look.
Permalink | May 03, 2006 |
0 comment(s)
Get posts like this: as an RSS feed | biweekly email | via Twitter
Get posts like this: as an RSS feed | biweekly email | via Twitter
0 Comments:
Comments closed for this post
