|Received:||5/23/2005 9:47:53 AM|
|Agency:||Federal Trade Commission|
|Rule:||Definitions, Implementation, and Reporting Requirements Under the CAN-SPAM Act|
Comments:While I strongly support the proposed changes to the CAN-SPAM act, I believe that there are related issues that are not addressed by either the current act or the changes that can and should be easily incorporated: 1. An opt-out to a SPAM vendor should permit the writer to be removed from all the sending company's offers, not simply the single presentation to which the opt-out link is attached. As an example, it was an endless process for me to opt-out of multiple types of mailings originating with freelotto.com as using the opt out link in the presentation merely removed me from that particular type of presentation. 2. The listing of a PO Box only as the business address has proved inadequate in contacting companies that do not properly honor opt-out requests. The street address and telephone number of a principle place of business, not just a mail drop, should be required. While I realize the following is not within the scope of the current CAN-SPAM legislation, I also strongly encourage the agency to press Congress for a revised act that would permit consumer and class action suits againts CAN-SPAM Act violators. As the agency has said on many occasions, it lacks the resources to pursue most of the violators. The result has been little or no reduction in SPAM in my mailbox. I believe that a lawe permitting direct action by consumers could have a sigfnificant impact on this problem.