Summary of State Spam Laws

As of May 9, 2003

Alaska – Alaska HB 82, effective August 1, 2003, makes it illegal to send unsolicited commercial e-mail containing explicit sexual material without an ADV:ADLT label as the first characters in the subject line.

Arkansas – Act 1496, enacted in April 2001, makes it illegal to send unsolicited e-mail messages that use a third party's domain name without permission, misrepresent the sender or point of origin, or contain falsified routing information. It is also illegal to distribute software designed to falsify routing information.

Act 1019, effective in July 2003, added an ADV:ADULT labeling requirement for sexually explicit e-mail; added a pre-existing business relationship exemption for the labeling provisions, as well as exempting ISPs from liability; and allows a private right of action.

California – California passed two anti-spam laws in 1998. Business and Professions Code Section 17538.4 regulates conduct by persons or entities doing business in California who transmit unsolicited advertising materials A sender of unsolicited commercial e-mail is required to obtain and supply a toll-free telephone number and email address. In addition, the law requires that the subject line include the label "ADV:" as the first four letters, and, in the case of advertisements for materials that may only be viewed, purchased, rented, leased, or held in possession by an individual 18 years of age and older, the subject line must include "ADV:ADLT" as the first eight characters.

Colorado – The Colorado Junk E-mail Law enacted in June 2000 (Title 6 Chapter 388 Article 2.5) requires that "ADV:" be listed on the subject line of unsolicited commercial e-mail. Prior business relationships are exempt. The law makes it illegal to falsify an e-mail’s point of origin or routing information, or to use a third party’s address or domain name without its permission. The law requires an opt-out provision for consumers who do not want to receive e-mail and provides a civil right of action for the recipient and rights for e-mail service providers to pursue civil penalties.

Connecticut- Public Act No. 99-160, enacted in June 1999, makes it illegal to send unsolicited bulk e-mail containing falsified routing information in violation of a provider's policies or to distribute software designed to falsify routing information. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who uses a computer or computer network located in Connecticut.

Delaware - Delaware Code Title 11, Sections 931, 937 & 938 enacted in July 1999, bans unsolicited commercial e-mail "when that person, without authorization, intentionally or recklessly distributes any unsolicited bulk commercial electronic mail to any receiving address or account under the control of any authorized user of a computer system."

The statute forbids forgery and software designed primarily for falsification of information and mandates that all commercial e-mail -- whether solicited or not -- contain information about how to stop receiving mail from the sender.

The bill exempts mail sent between "human beings" (i.e., non-bulk), and mail sent by an organization to its members.

Florida - Florida has not enacted spam legislation, although a Florida bar rule (Fla. R.P.C. 4-7.6(c)(3)) requires attorneys who advertise via unsolicited e-mail to put "legal advertisement" in the subject line.

Idaho - Idaho Code Title 48, Chapter 6, Section 48-603E enacted in July 2000, is an opt-out law. It treats existing customers the same as unsolicited ones as it relates to the opt-out provision. It says specifically: "Any person who uses an interactive computer service to initiate or cause the sending or transmittal of any bulk electronic mail advertisement shall provide an electronic mail address readily identifiable in the bulk electronic mail advertisement to which the recipient may send a request for declining such mail." The law mandates a timetable: after five business days of receipt of an opt-out notice, unsolicited commercial e-mail must cease.

It differs also from other laws in that it stipulates that "bulk electronic mail advertisement," means an electronic message, containing the same or similar advertisement, which is contemporaneously transmitted to two or more recipients. Other laws are silent or require just one e-mail transmission. States differ on this.

Illinois - The Illinois Electronic Mail Act (Public Act 91-0233) enacted in July 1999 defines electronic mail advertisement and unsolicited electronic mail advertisement more clearly than most similar statutes. Illinois does not require labeling. The bill prohibits placing "false or misleading information in the subject line."

Indiana – Indiana HB 1083, effective July 1, 2003, prohibits the sending of unsolicited commercial email without supplying a way for the receiver to opt-out of future email; provides that a person may not initiate or assist in the transmission of a commercial email message from a computer located in Indiana or to the electronic mail address of an Indiana resident if the message: (1) uses a third party's Internet domain name without permission of the third party; (2) otherwise misrepresents or obscures any information in identifying the point of origin or the transmission path of the electronic mail; or (3) contains false or misleading information in the subject line. The law requires ADV and ADV:ADLT labeling. Current business relationships are exempt. ISPs are exempt from liability and allowed to block the receipt or transmission through its service of such email. The law provides a private right of action for both a receiver of UCE and an ISP.

Iowa - Iowa Section 714E enacted in May 1999, does not differentiate between existing and unsolicited customers but it does require an opt-out provision for "unsolicited advertisements." Advertisement is defined but "unsolicited" is not. It would be prudent to assume that all commercial e-mail advertisers provide all customers the ability to opt out. It does not have a clear identity provision but simply requires an e-mail address to give consumers the ability to opt out.

Kansas - Under a Kansas law enacted in May 2002, commercial e-mail messages may not contain falsified routing information, use a third party's domain name without permission, or have a false or misleading subject line. Senders of commercial e-mail messages must include opt-out instructions and honor opt-out requests. Unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail messages (500 or more recipients) and advertisements for sexually explicit content must contain a label ("ADV:" or "ADV:ADLT") at the beginning of the subject line. The law applies if a message is sent from within Kansas or if the sender knows that the recipient is a Kansas resident. The law also prohibits the distribution of software designed to falsify routing information.

The law requires that the legal name, toll-free number, address and e-mail of the sender be listed. There must be a notice informing the recipient how to opt out of future e-mail advertisements from that sender. Opt-out instructions are required in the text of the message and must be at least as large as the majority of the text in the transmission.

Kentucky - Kentucky has not enacted spam legislation. A Kentucky Supreme Court rule (Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.130(7.09)(3), as amended effective January 2002) requires attorneys who advertise via written, recorded, or electronic communication targeted at potential clients to include the words "THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT" prominently in each communication.

Louisiana - Louisiana Title 14 §73.1 approved in July 1999 makes it illegal to send unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail to more than 1,000 recipients if the e-mail messages contain falsified routing information or the sender uses a provider's facilities to transmit the messages in violation of the provider's policies. The law also prohibits the distribution of software designed to falsify routing information.

A Louisiana bar rule (Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2(b)(iii)(B)) was amended in November 2001 to require attorneys who advertise via unsolicited e-mail targeted at potential clients to use a subject line that states, "This is an advertisement for legal services."

Maryland - Under Maryland SB 538 and HB 915, enacted in May 2002, it is illegal to send a commercial e-mail message that uses a third party's domain name without permission; that contains false or missing routing information; or with a false or misleading subject line. The law applies if a message is sent from within Maryland; if the sender knows that the recipient is a Maryland resident; or if the registrant of the domain name contained in the recipient's address will confirm upon request that the recipient is a Maryland resident.

Minnesota - Minnesota SF 2908, enacted in May 2002, prohibits commercial e-mail that uses a third party's domain name without permission; contains false routing information; or has a false or misleading subject line. Unsolicited commercial e-mail messages must contain the label "ADV" or, in the case of material of a sexual nature not to be viewed by those less than 18 years of age, the letters "ADV-ADULT" are required at the beginning of the subject line. The act, which will go into effect March 2003, requires ISPs - even those based in other states - to alert their Minnesota-based subscribers before disclosing to marketers information such as users' e-mail addresses, home addresses, telephone numbers, and which sites their users visit. ISPs also must tell why they are disclosing the information. In addition, e-mail messages must contain contact information.

Unsolicited commercial e-mail must contain a toll-free telephone number or valid e-mail address so a recipient may opt out of further unsolicited documents.

Missouri - Missouri RFMO 407.020 (e-mail section at very end) enacted in June 2000, requires unsolicited commercial e-mail messages to contain opt-out instructions and contact information. Unsolicited commercial e-mail must contain a toll-free telephone number or valid e-mail address so a recipient may opt out of further unsolicited documents.

Nevada – Nevada’s Revised Statute 41.705-735 enacted in July 1997 was unique. It required that an advertisement be labeled clearly and conspicuously as an advertisement but did not specify an "ADV" or any other method. AB 93, effective October 1, 2003, amended the statute to specify an ADV label and increased penalties.

The law requires that the name, address and e-mail address of the sender be listed. There must be a notice informing the recipient how to opt out of future e-mail advertisements from that sender.

New Mexico – New Mexico SB 699, effective June 20, 2003, requires unsolicited commercial e-mail messages to contain an opt-out notice, as well as both a toll-free telephone number and a valid sender-operated email address that a recipient can use to opt-out of future e-mail. The law requires the use of ADV or ADV:ADLT labeling in the subject line of unsolicited commercial e-mail. Existing business and personal relationships are exempt, as well as electronic messages to recipients that have opted-in. A private right of action is supplied for both e-mail recipients and ISPs.

North Carolina – North Carolina §14 - 453, legislation approved in June 1999, makes it illegal to send unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail containing falsified routing information, if the sender thereby violates a provider's policies. The law applies to e-mail sent into or within the state.

Ohio – SB 8, adopted in 2002, requires unsolicited commercial e-mail messages to contain the sender's name, address, and e-mail address, along with opt-out instructions, and requires senders to honor opt-out requests. These requirements do not apply to messages sent based upon a "direct referral" from another person. It is illegal to forge the sender's address or other routing information in commercial e-mail messages. The bill also enables a provider to sue a sender of commercial e-mail for violating the provider's policies if the sender has actual notice of such policies, or if the policies are posted on the provider's Website and are communicated electronically to the sender's computer.

Oklahoma - Title 15, Section 776, approved in June 1999, makes it illegal to send an e-mail message that contains false or missing routing information, or to distribute software designed to falsify routing information. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who sends a message to or through the network of a provider located in Oklahoma.

SB 660, effective November 1, 2003, amended the law to exempt established business relationships and ESPs, added both ADV and ADV:ADULT labeling requirements, and requiring unsolicited commercial e-mails to contain opt-out mechanisms.

Oregon - Oregon has not enacted spam legislation, although an Oregon bar rule (Ore. Code Prof. Resp. DR 2-101(H)) requires attorneys who advertise via unsolicited e-mail targeted at potential clients to include the word "Advertisement" prominently in the message body.

Pennsylvania - Consolidated Statutes 18:5903 enacted in June 2000, requires that e-mail containing explicit sexual materials include "ADV-ADULT" at the beginning of the subject line.

Rhode Island – Lawmakers in Providence have passed two laws in July 1999 governing e-mail: General Law Title 11, Section 52 and General Law Title 6, Chapter 47. These laws make it illegal to send unsolicited bulk e-mail with falsified routing information using a Rhode Island provider in violation of the provider's policies, or to distribute software designed to falsify routing information. A separate law requires that e-mail contain a toll-free telephone number or a valid return address so a recipient may write or e-mail to opt out, and opt-out requests must be honored; it is illegal to send unsolicited commercial e-mail using a third party's domain name without permission or containing false routing information. This law applies to messages sent from a computer located in Rhode Island and to messages sent into the state, if the sender had reason to know that the recipient was a Rhode Island resident or the recipient had previously submitted an opt-out request to the sender.

South Dakota - South Dakota lawmakers passed two bills in 2002. The first mandates an "ADV:" or an "ADV:ADLT" label. The second deals with the fraud issues contained in the Virginia model. The law also provides ISPs with protections if they act to block spam.

Tennessee - Code Annotated, Title 47, Chapter 18 enacted April 2002, requires senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail to tag the subject line "ADV:" or "ADV:ADLT" for "adult" ads. E-mails must include a statement informing the recipient of a toll-free telephone number that the recipient may call, or a valid return address to which the recipient may write or e-mail.

Utah – HB 80 and HB 143 were adopted in 2002. The first law requires an "ADV" label and an opt-out mechanism. A violation carries a civil penalty. The second law requires an "ADV:ADULT" label, mandates an opt-out mechanism and a violation is a criminal misdemeanor. E-mails must include a legal name, statement informing the recipient of a convenient, no-cost mechanism to notify the sender not to send any future e-mail to the recipient, including a toll-free telephone number (if they already have one) that the recipient may call, or a valid return address to which the recipient may write or e-mail. HB 143 is the law, which generated many letters threatening class action.

Virginia - Code of Virginia, Chapter 886, approved in March 1999, makes it illegal to send unsolicited bulk e-mail containing falsified routing information, if the sender thereby violates a provider's policies, or to distribute software designed to falsify routing information. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who uses a computer or computer network located in Virginia.

Washington – The Washington Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act, Title 19.190.020, enacted in March 1998, prohibits unsolicited electronic mail that advertises consumer products with a false or misleading subject line or return address. King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson originally struck down this law on grounds that it violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Washington Supreme Court later reversed that decision stating that "the only burden the Act places on spammers is the requirement of truthfulness, a requirement that does not burden commerce at all but actually 'facilitates it by eliminating fraud and deception.' "

SB 5574, enacted in April 2003 and effective July 27, 2003, gave district court jurisdiction over cases brought under the law, as long as the claim or the amount at issue does not exceed $50,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

West Virginia - Chapter 46A enacted in March 1999, makes it illegal to send unsolicited bulk e-mail messages in violation of a provider's policies that use a third party's domain name without permission, misrepresent the point of origin or other routing information, have a false or misleading subject line, or contain sexually explicit materials. Each message must include the sender's name and return e-mail address, along with the date and time it was sent. It is also illegal to distribute software designed to falsify routing information. The law applies if a message is sent from a computer located in West Virginia, or if the sender knows or has reason to know that the recipient is a resident of West Virginia.

Wisconsin - In June 2001 Wisconsin enacted a statute that requires unsolicited commercial e-mail messages that contain obscene material or depict sexually explicit conduct to include the words "ADULT ADVERTISEMENT" in the subject line. A separate Wisconsin statute prohibits e-mail harassment (Wis. Stat. § 947.0125), but does not appear to apply to most unsolicited bulk or commercial e-mail.

Wyoming – SB 41, enacted in March 2003 and effective July 1, 2003, makes it illegal to send unsolicited commercial e-mail using a third party's domain name without permission, misrepresenting the point of origin or other routing information, or having a false or misleading subject line. ISPs are exempted from liability.

© Direct Marketing Association | Privacy Statement | Share