U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 103— CONTROLLING THE ASSAULT OF NON-SOLICITED PORNOGRAPHY AND MARKETING

15 U.S.C. § 7701

Congressional findings and policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) FindingsThe Congress finds the following:(1) Electronic mail has become an extremely important and popular means of communication, relied on by millions of Americans on a daily basis for personal and commercial purposes. Its low cost and global reach make it extremely convenient and efficient, and offer unique opportunities for the development and growth of frictionless commerce.(2) The convenience and efficiency of electronic mail are threatened by the extremely rapid growth in the volume of unsolicited commercial electronic mail. Unsolicited commercial electronic mail is currently estimated to account for over half of all electronic mail traffic, up from an estimated 7 percent in 2001, and the volume continues to rise. Most of these messages are fraudulent or deceptive in one or more respects.(3) The receipt of unsolicited commercial electronic mail may result in costs to recipients who cannot refuse to accept such mail and who incur costs for the storage of such mail, or for the time spent accessing, reviewing, and discarding such mail, or for both.(4) The receipt of a large number of unwanted messages also decreases the convenience of electronic mail and creates a risk that wanted electronic mail messages, both commercial and noncommercial, will be lost, overlooked, or discarded amidst the larger volume of unwanted messages, thus reducing the reliability and usefulness of electronic mail to the recipient.(5) Some commercial electronic mail contains material that many recipients may consider vulgar or pornographic in nature.(6) The growth in unsolicited commercial electronic mail imposes significant monetary costs on providers of Internet access services, businesses, and educational and nonprofit institutions that carry and receive such mail, as there is a finite volume of mail that such providers, businesses, and institutions can handle without further investment in infrastructure.(7) Many senders of unsolicited commercial electronic mail purposefully disguise the source of such mail.(8) Many senders of unsolicited commercial electronic mail purposefully include misleading information in the messages’ subject lines in order to induce the recipients to view the messages.(9) While some senders of commercial electronic mail messages provide simple and reliable ways for recipients to reject (or “opt-out” of) receipt of commercial electronic mail from such senders in the future, other senders provide no such “opt-out” mechanism, or refuse to honor the requests of recipients not to receive electronic mail from such senders in the future, or both.(10) Many senders of bulk unsolicited commercial electronic mail use computer programs to gather large numbers of electronic mail addresses on an automated basis from Internet websites or online services where users must post their addresses in order to make full use of the website or service.(11) Many States have enacted legislation intended to regulate or reduce unsolicited commercial electronic mail, but these statutes impose different standards and requirements. As a result, they do not appear to have been successful in addressing the problems associated with unsolicited commercial electronic mail, in part because, since an electronic mail address does not specify a geographic location, it can be extremely difficult for law-abiding businesses to know with which of these disparate statutes they are required to comply.(12) The problems associated with the rapid growth and abuse of unsolicited commercial electronic mail cannot be solved by Federal legislation alone. The development and adoption of technological approaches and the pursuit of cooperative efforts with other countries will be necessary as well.(b) Congressional determination of public policyOn the basis of the findings in subsection (a), the Congress determines that—(1) there is a substantial government interest in regulation of commercial electronic mail on a nationwide basis;(2) senders of commercial electronic mail should not mislead recipients as to the source or content of such mail; and(3) recipients of commercial electronic mail have a right to decline to receive additional commercial electronic mail from the same source.(Pub. L. 108–187, § 2, Dec. 16, 2003, 117 Stat. 2699.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 108–187, § 16, Dec. 16, 2003, 117 Stat. 2719, provided that: “The provisions of this Act [see Short Title note below], other than section 9 [enacting section 7708 of this title], shall take effect on January 1, 2004.”

Short Title

Pub. L. 108–187, § 1, Dec. 16, 2003, 117 Stat. 2699, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter and section 1037 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, amending section 227 of Title 47, Telecommunications, and enacting provisions listed in a table relating to sentencing guidelines set out as a note under section 994 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] may be cited as the ‘Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003’, or the ‘CAN-SPAM Act of 2003’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 22× “Through this opinion we review the federal statutory scheme of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing ("CAN-SPAM") Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq., and assume the formidable task of determining the statutory standing requirements and the…”
West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2021 IL 125978 (Ill. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 227 (2018))], including any amendment of or addition to such law; or (2) The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 [( 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (Supp. III 2004))], including any amendment of or addition to such law; or (3) Any statute, ordinance or regulation, other than the TCPA or CAN-SPAM Act of…”
XMission, L.C. v. Fluent, 955 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 2020). “XMission’s complaint against Fluent is based on more than 10,000 emails sent from 2015 to early 2018 to more than 1,100 XMission customers in Utah through its servers, allegedly in violation of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003…”
Christopher Rad v. Attorney Gen. United States, 983 F.3d 651 (3rd Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 7701 (a)(2). To that end, the Act empowers consumers to sue marketers who relay misleading messages or refuse to honor opt-out requests.”
Fenn v. Mleads Enter., Inc., 2006 UT 8 (Utah 2006). · cites it 3× “CAN-SPAM addresses the problems associated with the rapid growth and abuse of unsolicited commercial email and accordingly recognizes the substantial government interest in regulating commercial email on a nationwide basis. CAN-SPAM prohibits commercial email from misleading…”
MySpace, Inc. v. Wallace, 498 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (C.D. Cal. 2007). · cites it 5× “The CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7701 et seq. (the “Act”), regulates the manner in which commercial email is transmitted and regulates various activities related to commercial email, such as prohibiting the use of false, misleading, or deceptive information, prohibiting the use of…”
Hypertouch, Inc. v. Valueclick, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that Appellant’s claims were preempted by the “Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003” (CAN-SPAM Act or Act; 15 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq.). Alternatively, Respondents argued that (1) Appellant…”
MARYCLE, LLC. v. First Choice Internet, Inc., 890 A.2d 818 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “2d 258 (same); 15 U.S.C. §§ 7701 (a)(Congressional findings for the CAN-SPAM Act on the costs associated with spam).”
United States v. Kilbride, 584 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2009). “” 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (b)(2)-(3). Defendants were convicted specifically under 18 U.”
Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 232 P.3d 625 (Cal. 2010). “3 The court alternatively found that even were the statute to prohibit the alleged conduct, the federal CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 ( 15 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq.) would preempt it.”
Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 972 F. Supp. 2d 748 (D. Maryland 2013). · cites it 4× “In the background of the state statutory landscape is the federal anti-spam statute, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (“CAN-SPAM” or “Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 7701 , et seq. CAN-SPAM, enacted in 2003 after many states had already taken…”
White Buffalo Ventures, LLC v. Univ. of Texas, 420 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2005). “See 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (a)(12). The court found that “[t]he Act .”
Show all 69 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.