You asked whether there have been any recent federal or state attempts to limit the amount of unsolicited "junk" mail. You specifically asked about the possibility of developing a list similar to that available to people who do not want to receive unsolicited telemarketing calls.

SUMMARY

There have been no recent federal attempts to restrict unsolicited direct mail advertising, popularly called "junk" mail, and we could find no state law restricting its distribution. In 1991, the Connecticut legislature's Environment Committee favorably reported HB 6413, which would have required certain publishers to provide recipients with either a post card or toll free number they could use to remove their names from mailing lists. The bill was defeated in the House.

There does not appear to be any reason why the legislature cannot enact legislation similar to the "no-call list" consumers may use to stop receiving unsolicited calls from telemarketers. However, there already exist several ways for consumers to limit the amount of unsolicited mail they receive.

Both the U. S. Postal Service and the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), a trade association of direct mail advertisers, provide means for consumers to ask that their names be taken off mailing lists. There are also several web sites, including http: //www. junkbusters. com/, http: //www. eref. net/privacy/fact_sheets/reducing_junk_mail. asp ,

http: //private-citizen. com/ and http: //www. obviously. com/junkmail/ that offer advice and methods on reducing junk mail.

CONSUMERS' RIGHT TO REFUSE JUNK MAIL

The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that consumers can request that their names be removed from mailing lists, stating that "a mailer's right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee" (Rowan, dba American Book Service v. U. S. Post Office, 397 U. S. 728, (1970)).

Consumers can use the Postal Service's Form 1500, called an Application for a Prohibitory Order, to remove their names from certain mailing lists. The form is available at some post offices and on the U. S. Postal Service web site at http: //new. usps. com/pdf/ps1500. pdf .

Although the form is primarily intended to prevent the delivery of unwanted sexually oriented mail, the Supreme Court stated in Rowan that individuals can also use it to refuse any unsolicited mail from specific mailers. They must send the postal service the application and the objectionable mail they received. (The mail should be opened, because postal workers cannot open sealed articles). The Postal Service issues a prohibitory order barring the mailer from sending more mail to the addressee, starting 30 days after receipt of the order (39 USC 3008). A copy of the form is attached.

DMA LIST

DMA operates a mail preference service for consumers who want to remove their names from mailing lists. Consumers can register with the name-removal file on-line (for a $ 5 fee) at http: //www. the-dma. org/cgi/offmailinglistdave or by sending their name, home address, and signature to DMA at:

Mail Preference Service

c/o Direct Marketing Association

PO Box 9008

Farmingdale, NY 11735-9008.

(DMA does not charge a fee to register by letter. )

Registration is good for five years. DMA provides this list to companies four times a year. DMA says registrants typically notice a decrease in direct mail advertising about three months after registering. However, they will continue to receive junk mail from companies that do not participate in the program. Also, consumers can ask to be removed from some mailing lists but not others.

HB 6413, AAC THE REDUCTION OF UNWANTED JUNK MAIL

HB 6413, introduced in the 1991 session, would have required publishers who mail more than 5,000 copies of certain publications to include (1) a postcard or other insert or (2) a toll-free telephone number which a recipient could use to have his address removed from their mailing lists. It would have covered solicitations for business purposes only, including periodicals, circulars, newsletters and catalogs, and magazines sent unsolicited to specific addresses. The bill would have barred publishers from sending publications for one year to individuals who requested that their names be removed.

Opponents of the bill said it lacked specific penalties. They also expressed concern about enforcing the law against out-of-state companies and about its impact on Connecticut mail-order companies. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 101-42 (House Sess. Tr. May 2, 1991).

"NO SEND" LIST

Rich Kehoe, legislative liaison for the attorney general, says there does not appear to be a reason why the state could not create a "no send" list similar to the list PA 00-118 created to bar calls from telemarketers.

That act (codified as CGS § 42-288a) creates a no-call list that prohibits, with certain exceptions, telephone solicitors from making, or causing to be made, unsolicited telephone sales calls to consumers who have registered their wish not to receive them. It authorizes the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) to operate the list or to contract with an organization to operate it.

(DCP has contracted with DMA). It requires marketers to delete from their marketing lists and underlying databases the names, addresses and telephone numbers of consumers who are on the state list. It makes violating its provisions an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

PF: ts