- Related Stories
-
Blocklist wins round in spam spat
June 30, 2004 -
Court takes gag off antispam service
May 13, 2004 -
Judge ties antispammer's hands
May 11, 2004 -
Microsoft, New York launch spam lawsuits
December 18, 2003 -
Lawmakers: It's open season on spam
May 1, 2003
New York?s attorney general reaches settlement with Scott Richter, a prominent Internet marketer who runs OptInRealBig.com.
The New York Times
The story "Spam sender settles N.Y. case" published July 20, 2004 at 7:59 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.
Add a Comment (Log in or register)
- It shows why the advertiser needs to be accountable!
- This story shows whyu it is important that the advertiser: the one who sells the product or service advertised in the spam, needs to be legally responsible for the sending of the spam. If the law defines this liability (and I understand that CAN-SPAM does to some extent) then there is someone that can be sued and no need to go into the intricate details of complex agreements between all the parties involved. The party paying for the campaign should be held accountable, and this way it would be necessary for that party to choose its agents carefully, and probably to insure itself against liability (which in turn would require that it only use agents aproved by the insurer...)
- Like this Reply to this comment
