Opinions
People in Seattle Love Affiliate Porno Spam
By Shawn Collins
Mar 26, 2008, 09:41

Just a couple weeks ago, there was a $400,000-plus settlement between online pornographer Cyberheat and the Federal Trade Commission over CAN-SPAM violations. But the FTC lost a similar case this past Monday, according to Direct Magazine.

A jury in Seattle Monday ruled that a pornography marketer was not responsible for spam sent by some affiliates, handing the Federal Trade Commission a stunning defeat.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Seattle unanimously determined in a civil proceeding that Impulse Media Group Inc. was not responsible for hundreds of unsolicited, sexually explicit commercial e-mails sent by some of its affiliates to bring traffic to its sites.

The case, brought under the Can Spam Act, hinged on whether Impulse “initiated” the spam sent by its affiliates.

I will readily admit that I am not a legal scholar, but I think this is a travesty. How could the jury choose in favor of the Impulse Media Group here?

I don’t get why the case was based on whether Impulse “initiated” the spam. I thought the onus was on the advertiser to take steps to prevent affiliates from spamming?

If advertisers are not on the hook for the behavior of spamming affiliates, what is the purpose of CAN-SPAM? I guess this case indicates that an affiliate manager can claim ignorance and go back to their affiliates and say don’t spam. Wink, nudge.

“I think it will be less likely for plaintiffs and the government to bring spam cases based on affiliate conduct unless there’s actually substantial evidence to back up the fact that the marketer knew about the affiliates’ violations,” said Seattle lawyer and Spamnotes blogger Venkat Balasubramani, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Thanks jury in Seattle - you’ve empowered legions of bottom feeders to open up the spam floodgates.