"SPAM" LEGISLATION

OLR Research Report


November 15, 2002		2002-R-0868 (Revised)
"SPAM" LEGISLATION

By: Danielle O'Connell, Legislative Fellow

You asked (1) if the Connecticut legislature has discussed or passed any spam legislation and (2) if other jurisdictions have passed similar legislation.

SUMMARY

Connecticut prohibits falsifying or forging electronic mail transmission information or other routing information in connection with sending unsolicited bulk e-mail (CGS § 53-451). Spammers typically falsify routing information. The law establishes criminal and civil penalties and gives the attorney general enforcement authority over statutory violations.

Two bills specifically concerning spam were introduced during the February 2002 legislative session. A Banks Committee bill (Raised Bill 331) expanded the law prohibiting false routing of information. The bill prohibited anyone from initiating or helping to transmit unsolicited commercial e-mail messages from a computer located in Connecticut or to a recipient that the sender has reason to know is a state resident. The bill also prohibited the nonconsensual use of a third-party's Internet domain name or the misrepresentation of information identifying the point of origin or transmission path of a commercial e-mail message.

An Energy and Technology Committee bill (SB 484) required the sender of unsolicited e-mail advertisements to provide a toll-free telephone number or a valid return e-mail address that the recipient could use to decline the receipt of future messages. It also required the sender to identify the message as an advertisement in the subject line of the e-mail.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 26 states currently have anti-spam laws. These laws generally prohibit

1. misrepresenting or falsifying an e-mail's routing information,

2. using a third-party's Internet address without permission,

3. including misleading information in the subject line of a message, or,

4. selling or distributing software designed solely to falsify an e-mail's point of origin or routing information,

5. requiring an option that enables recipients to decline from receiving future messages, or

6. requiring that the subject line be labeled to identify whether it contains an advertisement ("ADV: ") or adult material ("ADV: ADLT").

Two recent court decisions have upheld anti-spamming laws in other states. The Washington Supreme Court upheld a statute that prohibits misrepresenting any information that identifies the point of origin or transmission path of a message, puts false or misleading information in the subject line, or uses a third-party's domain name without permission. The U. S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the decision. California's First District Court of Appeals also upheld that state's anti-spam law, which requires unsolicited advertising e-mail messages to be labeled (ADV: ) or (ADV: ADLT).

The federal government has not enacted any anti-spam legislation. However, Congress has considered eight bills targeting spam, including legislation to prohibit false or deceptive subject lines and requiring opt-out information for recipients.

SPAM

The term spam refers broadly to unsolicited bulk e-mail, or junk e-mail, which can be either commercial or noncommercial in nature. Commercial e-mails are usually advertisements promoting real property, goods, or services for sale or lease. Noncommercial e-mail includes jokes or chain letters.

According to a Business Week article, spam accounts for 38% of all e-mail traffic. The high rate of spamming is problematic because (1) deleting multiple unsolicited messages is time consuming and annoying to consumers; (2) spam can be sent at little or no cost to recipients, therefore shifting the cost of advertising from the spammer to consumers, who must pay higher monthly Internet subscription rates in order to pay for the provider's increased handling costs; and (3) spammers typically pirate domain names belonging to third parties, thus creating problems for both the party whose Internet identity has been stolen and for consumers attempting to decline receiving future messages from the spammer.

CONNECTICUT LAW

Current Legislation

Connecticut law prohibits false or forged e-mail transmission or routing information in connection with sending unsolicited bulk e-mail. The law also prohibits selling or distributing software primarily designed to falsify e-mail transmission information. Spammers typically falsify routing information when sending unsolicited bulk e-mail.

The law gives the attorney general the authority to sue violators, who are subject to criminal and civil penalties. To date, the attorney general has not taken any enforcement action on violations of this law. Although the attorney general receives many complaints each year about unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements, there is currently no Connecticut law giving recipients or Internet Service Providers (ISPs) protection or a cause of action against spammers.

Proposed Legislation

An Act Concerning Spam. The Banks Committee introduced Bill 331 during the February 2002 session. The bill made it illegal to help transmit commercial e-mail messages if the transmission was from a computer located in Connecticut. The bill also prohibited using a third-party's Internet domain name without permission, misrepresenting the point of origin or transmission path of the message, or having false or misleading information in the subject line of a massage.

An Act Concerning Internet Privacy and Unsolicited Electronic Mail. The Energy and Technology Committee introduced Bill 484, which added requirements for sending unsolicited e-mails. The bill required spammers to include an option allowing recipients to opt-out of receiving future messages. It also required spammers to identify the message as an advertisement in the subject line of the e-mail. The bill also made it a violation to send further unsolicited advertisements after receiving notice that the recipient did not want such e-mails.

OTHER JURISDICTIONS

State Laws

All of the 26 states that have anti-spamming laws have at least one of the following:

1. a prohibition on sending unsolicited commercial e-mail messages containing falsified, forged, or misleading subject lines or headers;

2. a requirement that senders include contact information in the form of a toll-free phone number or valid return e-mail address so the recipient may decline to receive future messages;

3. a requirement that senders identify advertisements by "ADV: " or "ADV: ADLT" in the subject line or header;

4. a prohibition on using a third-party's Internet domain name without that party's consent; or

5. a prohibition against falsifying or misrepresenting the sender's identity or message's point of origin.

Some states have additional protections: 19 specifically create a civil cause of action against spammers for recipients and ISPs; 14 allow the ISP to block the receipt or transmission of spam without liability; four make sending spam a violation of the state's unfair trade practice law; and three authorize the state attorney general to provide civil enforcement action against spammers.

All least three states have gone even farther.

1. Nevada and Rhode Island allow recovery of punitive damages for violations of their anti-spam laws.

2. In Nevada, it is illegal to willfully transmit e-mail with the intent of preventing, impeding, or delaying the normal operation of the Internet, whether such impediment actually occurs. It is also illegal to transmit e-mail under circumstances reasonably likely to prevent, impede, or delay the normal operation of the Internet, whether such impediment actually occurs.

3. Under Kansas law, it is illegal to give or share e-mail addresses of recipients who have declined to receive future messages.

Attachment 1 is a table summarizing each state's spam laws.

Case Law

Washington. In October 2001, the U. S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a Washington Supreme Court decision that upheld that state's anti-spam law. In State v. Heckel, the Washington Supreme Court found that the state's anti-spam statute did not unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce because (1) its local benefits outweighed any burden placed on interstate commerce and (2) the burdens imposed by the law are not clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. (State v. Heckel, 24 P. 3d 404 (2001)).

The law prohibits sending deceptive commercial e-mail-such as those messages with a false header, misleading subject line, or use of a third-party's e-mail address without permission. The law applies if a message is sent within Washington or to a Washington resident. Heckel, an Oregon resident, was accused of sending messages containing misleading subject lines and false transmission paths to Washington residents.

Under a dormant Commerce Clause analysis, the court found the law facially neutral because it applied the same to Heckel as it did to Washington spammers. Upon this finding, the court conducted a balancing of the statute's local benefits against any interstate burdens it imposed (established in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. , 397 U. S. 137 (1970)).

The court concluded that the statute protected three groups-ISPs, actual owners of forged domain names, and e-mail users-therefore serving a "legitimate local purpose. " The law protected these groups from economic harm caused by the sending and receipt of unsolicited e-mail. This protection outweighed the only burden placed on spammers, the requirement of truthfulness. The court also found that (1) the differences between Washington's anti-spam statute and those of other states did not impose costs "clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits" and (2) the statute had "sweeping extraterritorial effects" outweighing its local benefits.

California. In April 2002, the California Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a First District Court of Appeals decision that upheld that state's anti-spam law. In Ferguson v. FriendFinders, Inc. , the court held that the law (1) did not discriminate against, or directly regulate, interstate commerce; (2) furthered the state's interest in protecting its citizens from the harmful effects of spam; and (3) did not create a burden on interstate commerce that outweighed the statute's benefits (Ferguson v. FriendFinders, Inc. , 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 258 (2002)).

The law requires certain unsolicited e-mail messages to be labeled if they contain advertising ("ADV: ") or adult material ("ADV: ADLT"). Under the law, such e-mails must also include a valid toll-free number or e-mail address that recipients may use to decline receiving future e-mails. Senders of unsolicited e-mail who receive such requests are prohibited from sending future advertisements. The law applies to those who conduct business in California, use equipment in California, and send unsolicited commercial e-mail to California residents. Ferguson, a California resident, accused the defendants of altering e-mail headers to conceal their identity, transmitting e-mails without the subject line advertisement identifiers, and failing to provide valid return e-mail addresses to which recipients could respond and decline receipt of further messages.

The Court conducted a dormant Commerce Clause analysis to determine whether the statute discriminates against interstate commerce and whether any burden imposed on interstate commerce outweighed its putative local benefits. Under a strict scrutiny analysis, the court found that the law did not discriminate against or directly regulate interstate commerce. The court, relying on the reasoning of Heckel, found that the statute had a valid local purpose and did not impose burdens on interstate commerce that outweighed its local benefits.

The anti-spam statue was strengthened in September of this year through two bills (A. B. 2944 and A. B. 1769), making the transmission of spam via fax machines, cell phones, and text messaging pagers illegal. These acts will go into effect in January 2003.

California's attorney general filed the first legal action under the anti-spam law in October of this year.

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Congress has not enacted any anti-spam legislation but has considered eight bills targeting spam. The provisions contained in the proposed legislation include:

1. establishing criminal penalties for intentionally transmitting unsolicited commercial e-mail messages with the knowledge the message header contains false or misleading information as to the identity of the sender or the information contained in the message,

2. creating criminal penalties for selling any computer program designed to conceal the routing information of unsolicited e-mails,

3. requiring opt-out information and information to the identifying the initiator of the unsolicited message,

4. requiring that notices be affixed to any e-mail containing a sexually oriented advertisement,

5. requiring schools and libraries to certify that they have adopted and implemented a policy for anonymous Internet access,

6. prohibiting sending unsolicited advertisements with mobile telephone messaging systems, and

7. allowing individuals to sue violators for damages.

Attachment 1

Table 1: Summaries of State Spam Laws

*State*	*Statutory* *Cite*	*Key Provisions*
AR	Ark. Stat. §§ 5-41-205	· Prohibits knowingly sending messages containing falsified or forged subject line, header, or sender identification without the consent of the recipient. · Prohibits knowingly using another's Internet domain name without that party's consent. · Prohibits selling or distributing any data, information, image, program, signal, or sound intended to falsify or forge the subject line, header, sender's identification, or transmission path of the e-mail. · Creates immunity for ISPs so long as they were not the first to transmit the message. · Subjects violators to criminal penalties.
CA	Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17538. 4 to . 45	· Requires a valid return e-mail address through which the recipient can decline receiving future messages. · Requires the subject line to include the identifier "ADV: " for advertisement material or "ADV: ADLT" for adult material. · Allows ISPs to initiative a private right of action to recover attorneys' fees and the greater of actual monetary loss suffered or $ 50 for each e-mail message initiated or delivered illegally, up to a maximum of $ 25,000 per day. · Requires ISPs to establish that the sender had actual notice of the ISP's policy on unsolicited e-mail advertising and that sender's messages used the provider's equipment located in this state.
CO	Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-2. 5-101 to -105	· Prohibits sending unsolicited commercial e-mail that fail to disclose the message's point of origin. · Prohibits falsifying e-mail transmission information. · Prohibits using a third-party's Internet address or domain name without that party's consent. · Requires putting "ADV: " as the first four characters of the subject line of an advertisement. · Requires including a valid return e-mail address that the recipient can use to decline receiving future messages. · Prohibits giving the e-mail address of any person who declined receipt of messages to any third party, except for the sole purpose of excluding the recipient from other mailing lists. · Allows recipients and ISPs to recover actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and $ 10 for each message transmitted in violation of the statute. · Allows ISPs to block messages they reasonably believe violate the law and provides immunity for mere transmission of bulk e-mail messages.
CT	CGS §§ 53-451(b)(7)- -452	· Prohibits falsifying or forging transmission data or other routing information of unsolicited bulk e-mail. · Prohibits selling, giving, or distributing any software designed to enable the falsification of e-mail transmission information, has limited commercial value otherwise, or is marketed by anyone who knows that it is for such use. · Subjects violators to criminal penalties. People who violate this section are guilty of a class B misdemeanor; if such persons' reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions causes damage to property in excess of $ 2,500, they are guilty of a class A misdemeanor; and if such persons' malicious actions cause damage to property in excess of $ 2,500, they are guilty of a class D felony. · Establishes a private right of action for recipients to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and actual damages or the lesser of $ 10 for each message transmitted in violation, or $ 25,000 per day. · Establishes a private right of action for ISPs to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and actual damages, or the greater of $ 10 for each e-mail transmitted in violation, or $ 25,000 per day. · Creates immunity for ISPs that merely transmit unsolicited e-mail messages. · Establishes civil enforcement by the attorney general.
DE	Del. Code tit. 11 §§ 937-938	· Prohibits distributing unsolicited commercial e-mail messages intentionally or recklessly without the receiver's permission. · Prohibits falsifying or forging transmission information. · Prohibits selling, giving, or distributing any software designed to enable the falsification of e-mail transmission information, has limited commercial value otherwise, or is marketed by anyone who knows that it is for such use. · Creates immunity for ISPs that take action to block the receipt or transmission of unsolicited e-mails they believe violate the law and who merely transmit bulk e-mail messages. · Requires unsolicited advertisements to contain a valid return e-mail address through which the recipient can decline receiving future messages. · Prohibits sending future e-mail messages after receiving such notification.
ID	Idaho Code §§ 48-603E	· Requires unsolicited advertisements to contain a valid return e-mail address through which the recipient can decline receiving future messages. · Makes it illegal for the sender to continue transmitting messages more than five days after such notification. · Prohibits using a fictitious name or name of a third party without that party's consent. · Prohibits misrepresenting or excluding the point of origin or transmission path of the e-mail. · Establishes a private right of action for recipients to recover actual damages, or the greater of $ 100 for each message transmitted to the recipient in violation of this article, or $ 1,000. · Allows ISPs to block messages they reasonably believe violate the law and provides immunity for mere transmission of bulk e-mail messages.
IL	IL. Comp. Stat. §§ 815 ILCS 511/1 to /15, 720 ILCS 5/16D-3	· Prohibits sending unsolicited e-mail messages using a third-party's domain name without that party's consent. · Prohibits misrepresenting the point of origin or transmission path of an e-mail message. · Prohibits putting false or misleading information in the subject line. · Establishes a private right of action for recipients and ISPs to recover attorneys' fees and actual damages, or the lesser of $ 10 for each message transmitted in violation of this article or $ 25,000 per day. · Allows ISPs to block messages they reasonably believe violate the law and provides immunity for mere transmission of bulk e-mail messages. · Establishes that any violation of the act constitutes an unlawful practice under the state's unfair trade practices law.
IA	Iowa Code §§ 714E. 1, 714E. 2	· Prohibits using the name of a third party in the return address field without that party's permission. · Prohibits misrepresenting or excluding the point of origin or transmission path of an e-mail message. · Prohibits sending unsolicited advertisements that do not provide a return e-mail address to which the recipient may decline receiving future messages. · Makes it illegal for the sender to repeatedly transmit messages to the recipient upon such notification. · Establishes a private right of action for the recipient to recover reasonable attorneys fees and actual damages (including loss of profits), or the greater of $ 10 for each message transmitted to the recipient in violation of this section, or $ 500. · Establishes a private right of action for ISPs to recover attorneys' fees, costs, and actual damages, or the greater of $ 10 for each unsolicited e-mail transmitted, or $ 25,000. · Establishes civil enforcement by the attorney general. · Allows ISPs to block messages they reasonably believe violate the law and provides immunity for mere transmission of bulk e-mail messages.
KS	2002 S. B. 467	· Prohibits using a third-party's domain name without consent or misrepresenting the point of origin of a message. · Prohibits putting false or misleading information in the subject line. · Requires putting "ADV: " or "ADV: ADLT" as the first character in the subject line. The requirement for "ADV" is not necessary if the recipient has an established business relationship or has given the sender authorization. The sender claiming such exemption carries the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. · Requires including a valid return e-mail address through which the recipient can decline receiving future messages. It is prima facie evidence that the sender is in violation if the recipient's reply e-mail is returned as undeliverable or is otherwise not accepted by the sender. · Prohibits initiating or assisting in the transmission of a commercial e-mail message after the recipient has given notice declining such e-mails. · Prohibits giving, transferring, selling, or sharing e-mail addresses of any recipient who has given such notification for any use other than for the third party to remove the address from the mailing list. · Prohibits selling, giving, or distributing any software designed to enable the falsification of e-mail transmission information, has limited commercial value otherwise, or is marketed by anyone who knows that it is for such use. · Establishes a private right of action for recipients to recover between $ 500 and $ 10,000 for each violation. · Establishes that any person alleging a violation is deemed a consumer aggrieved under the state's unfair trade practices law. · Allows ISPs to take action to block the receipt or transmission of unsolicited e-mails they believe violate the law.
LA	La. Rev. Stat. §§ 73. 1, 73. 6	· Prohibits using a computer network or service to transmit unsolicited bulk e-mail messages in violation of the network's policies. · Prohibits using a computer network with the intent to falsify or forge e-mail transmission information of unsolicited bulk e-mail. · Prohibits selling, giving, or distributing any software designed to enable the falsification of e-mail transmission information, has limited commercial value otherwise, or is marketed by anyone who knows that it is for such use. · Establishes a maximum penalty of $ 5,000 for violations. · Creates immunity for ISPs that merely transmit unsolicited e-mail messages.
MD	Md. Code § 13-319 as amended by 2002 Md. laws ch 324	· Prohibits misrepresenting information relating to the point of origin or transmission path of e-mail messages. · Prohibits putting false or misleading information in the subject line. · Makes it illegal to knowingly assist another to violate this title.
MN	Minn. Stat. § 325F. 694, as amended by 2002 Minn. laws ch 395	· Prohibits using a third-party's Internet domain name without consent or otherwise misrepresenting the point of origin or transmission path of an e-mail message. · Prohibits putting false or misleading information in the subject line. · Requires putting "ADV" or "ADV-ADLT" as the first characters in the subject line. · Requires commercial e-mails to contain a toll-free number or valid return e-mail address that allows the recipient to decline future messages. · Creates immunity for ISPs that block or merely transmit unsolicited e-mail messages. · Allows a defense, proving by a preponderance of the evidence, that the sender did not initiate the commercial e-mail, the e-mail was initiated in a way out of the sender's control, or that the sender implemented reasonable procedures to prevent transmission of commercial e-mail in violation of this section. · Allows recipients and ISPs to recover damages based on the injury sustained and type of violation committed. · Prohibits bringing class action suits.
MO	Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 407. 1120, 407. 1123, 407. 1129, 407. 1132	· Prohibits sending e-mail advertisements without a toll-free number or valid return e-mail address that the recipient may use to decline receiving future messages. · Prohibits assisting in the transmission of any e-mail advertisement in violation of this section. · Creates violations under the state's unfair trade practices law. · Allows aggrieved parties to recover the greater of $ 500 or actual damages. · Allows ISPs to recover the greater of $ 1,000 or actual damages. · Allows ISPs to block messages they reasonably believe violate the law and provides immunity for mere transmission of bulk e-mail messages.
NC	N. C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-453, 14-458	· Prohibits falsifying the sender's identity with the intent to deceive or defraud the recipient or forging commercial e-mail transmissions. · Subjects violators to criminal penalties. · Authorizes plaintiffs to recover damages and costs.
NV	Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 205. 492, 205. 511 to . 513, 41. 705 to . 735	· Prohibits willful transmission of falsified or forged information in the header, subject line, or routing instructions of the e-mail message. · Prohibits willfully transmitting falsified or forged identifying information of the sender, domain name of a third party, or point of origin of the email message. · Prohibits selling, giving, or distributing any software designed to enable the falsification of e-mail transmission information, has limited commercial value otherwise, or is marketed by anyone who knows that it is for such use. · Subjects violators to criminal penalties. · Establishes an order of payment in restitution. · Establishes immunity for ISPs that merely transmit unsolicited e-mail messages. · Establishes a private right of action for recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees, punitive damages, and actual damages or the greater of $ 10 for each message received. · Establishes civil enforcement by the attorney general. · Creates exceptions to liability when the e-mail is readily identifiable as an advertisement and clearly provides the sender's legal name, address, e-mail address, and a notice that the recipient may opt-out of receiving future e-mail messages.
OH	Ohio Rev. Code § 2307. 64, as amended by 2002 S. B. 8	· Requires senders to include identifying and contact information. · Requires notice and a procedure to decline receipt of future messages. Such notice must be the same size type as the majority of the text and must not require the recipient to provide any information. · Prohibits using an ISP's computer, network, or program with the intent to forge an originating address or other routing information in connection with the transmission of e-mail advertisements. Each violation of this offense constitutes a forgery. · Prohibits sending future messages to recipient within a reasonable period of time upon notice that the recipient has declined to receive such messages. · Prohibits transmitting messages through an ISP if provided notice that doing so violates its policies. · Creates immunity for ISPs that merely transmit unsolicited e-mail messages. · Authorizes recipients to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and $ 100 for each violation up to $ 50,000 total. · Authorizes ISPs to recover $ 50 for each violation, up to $ 50,000 total; if the violation is willful or knowing, the court may increase the amount up to $ 500,000. · Authorizes courts to impose monetary awards higher than the set limitations if the violator had intent to forge an originating address. · Authorizes courts to issue restraining orders prohibiting the sender from transmitting any additional messages to the recipient.
OK	Okla. Stat. Tit. §§ 776. 1, 776. 2, 776. 3, 776. 4	· Prohibits misrepresenting or excluding information identifying the point of origin or transmission path of the message. · Prohibits putting false, malicious, or misleading information in the message that purposely or negligently injures a person. · Establishes civil penalties up to $ 500. · Establishes that offenses constitute fraud and are violations of the state's unfair trade practices law. · Prohibits selling, giving, or distributing any software designed to enable the falsification of e-mail transmission information, has limited commercial value otherwise, or is marketed by anyone who knows that it is for such use. · Establishes a private right of action allowing recipients to recover actual damages, or the lesser of $ 10 for each e-mail transmitted in violation, or $ 25,000 per day. · Establishes a private right of action for an ISP to recover actual damages, or the greater of $ 10 per transmission, or $ 25,000. · Establishes that damages include attorneys' fees, costs, and loss of profits.
PA	Pa. Cons. Stat. Tit. 18 § 5903	· Requires sexual e-mail advertisements be identified by "ADV-ADULT" in the beginning of the subject line. · Subjects violators to criminal penalties. · Imposes, upon a finding of an attempt to evade prosecution by knowingly including false or misleading information in the return address, a fine between $ 100 and $ 500 per message, or imprisonment for no more than 90 days, or both for a first offense; between $ 500 and $ 1,000, or imprisonment for no more than one year, or both for a second or subsequent offense. · Establishes concurrent prosecutorial jurisdiction for the attorney general.
RI	R. I. Gen. Laws §§ 6-47-2, 11-52-4. 1, 11-52-2, 11-52-6	· Requires including a toll-free number or valid return e-mail address accompanied by a statement of information so that the recipient may decline receiving future e-mail messages. · Prohibits transmission of future messages after receiving such notification. · Prohibits using a third-party's domain name without consent or misrepresenting the transmission path of the message. · Creates immunity for ISPs that merely transmit unsolicited e-mail messages. · Establishes that violators shall be liable for damages of $ 100 for each violation, reasonable attorneys fees, and costs. · Creates a separate criminal offense of computer trespass when the e-mail header or routing information is forged or when software enabling forgery of transmission information is sold or distributed. · Establishes an award for compensatory and punitive damages, court costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees. · Allows the recipient to initiate a private right of action to recover attorneys' fees, costs, and actual damages or the lesser of $ 500 for each e-mail transmitted, up to a maximum of $ 25,000 per day. · Allows ISPs to recover attorneys' fees, costs, and actual damages or the greater of $ 500 for each transmission, up to a maximum of $ 25,000 per day.
SD	S. D. Codified Laws § 37-24-37, as amended by 2002 S. D. ch 186	· Prohibits knowingly using a third-party's domain name without consent. · Prohibits misrepresenting the point of origin or transmission path of a message. · Prohibits putting false or misleading information in the subject line. · Allows ISPs to block the receipt or transmission of unsolicited e-mails that it believe violate the law. · Allows a private right of action for recovery of damages the greater of actual monetary loss or $ 500 for each violation, up to $ 10,000 total. · Allows the court to increase damages to an amount up to three times the amount available under this section for willful, knowing, and repeated violations. · Establishes that all damage awards may include recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
TN	Tenn. Code §§ 47-18-1602, 47-18-1604, 47-18-2501, 47-18-2502	· Requires commercial e-mail to include a toll-free number or valid return e-mail address so the recipient may decline receiving future messages. · Prohibits the sender from transmitting messages upon receiving such notification. · Requires the subject line of advertisements to begin with the identifier "ADV" or "ADV: ADLT. " · Prohibits selling, giving, or distributing any software designed to enable the falsification of e-mail transmission information, has limited commercial value otherwise, or is marketed by anyone who knows that it is for such use. · Creates immunity for ISPs that merely transmit unsolicited e-mail messages. · Allows a private right of action for recipients to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, loss of profits, and actual damages. In lieu of actual damages, a recipient may recover the lesser of $ 10 for each e-mail transmitted or $ 5,000 per day. · Allows a private right of action for ISPs to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, loss of profits, and actual damages. In lieu of actual damages, an ISP may recover the greater of $ 10 for each e-mail transmitted or $ 5,000 per day. · Subjects violators to the state's unfair trade practices law. · Establishes that civil penalties between $ 100 and $ 500 maybe assessed by the appropriate regulatory agency against any person who initiates e-mail messages to a recipient who has previously declined receipt of such messages.
UT	Utah Code §§ 13-34-101 to -104, as amended by 2002 HB 80	· Requires sender to include its legal name, correct street address, and valid domain name. · Requires putting "ADV: " as first characters in the subject line. · Prohibits using a third-party's domain name without their consent, misrepresenting the point of origin, or excluding the transmission path pf an email message. · Requires a convenient, no-cost mechanism for the recipient to decline the receipt of future e-mail messages and a conspicuous notice of such option in the message. · Prohibits the sender from transmitting any future e-mails directly, through a subsidiary, or an affiliate after receiving such notification. · Establishes a private right of action for recovery of attorneys' fees, costs, and actual damages or, the lesser of $ 10 per message received by the recipient, or transmitted through the ISP, or $ 25,000 per day. · Provides a defense that the transmission was accidental. · Creates immunity for ISPs that merely transmit unsolicited e-mail messages.
VA	Va. Code §§ 18. 2-152. 4, 18. 2-152. 12	· Prohibits falsifying or forging e-mail transmission information. · Prohibits knowingly selling software designed to enable the falsification of e-mail transmissions, has only limited commercial value otherwise, or is marketed by anyone who knows that it is for such use. · Subjects violators to criminal penalties. · Allows a private right of action for recovery of loss of profits, attorneys' fees, costs, and actual damages, or the lesser of $ 10 per transmission, or $ 25,000 per day. · Allows a private right of action for ISPs to recover loss of profits, attorneys' fees, costs, and actual damages, or the greater of $ 10 per transmission, or $ 25,000 per day.
WA	Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19. 190. 010 to . 050	· Prohibits (a) using, or helping someone to use, a third-party's domain name without consent, (2) misrepresenting the point of origin of an e-mail message, or (3) putting false or misleading information in the subject line of an e-mail message. · Establishes violations under the state's unfair trade practices law. · Allows a private right of action for a recipient to recover the greater of actual damages or $ 500. · Allows a private right of action for ISPs to recover the greater of actual damages or $ 1,000. · Allows ISPs to block messages they reasonably believe violate the law and provides immunity for mere transmission of bulk e-mail messages.
WV	W. Va. Code §§ 46A-6G-1 to -6G5	· Prohibits knowingly using a third-party's domain name without consent or misrepresenting the point of origin or transmission path of an email message. · Prohibits putting false or misleading information in the subject line. · Requires putting the date and time the message was sent, identity of the sender, and return e-mail address in the message. · Prohibits transmission of sexually explicit materials. · Allows ISPs to block messages they reasonably believe violate the law and provides immunity for mere transmission of bulk e-mail messages. · Allows ISPs to disconnect the violator's service. · Prohibits selling, giving, or otherwise distributing software that enables falsification of information, has limited commercial value otherwise, or is marketed by anyone who knows that it is for such use. · Allows a private right of action for recovery actual damages or a minimum of $ 1,000. · Establishes that punitive damages may be awarded for willful failure to cease initiating unauthorized e-mails. · Allows an action to enjoin the initiator from sending future e-mails and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. · Establishes a private right of action for ISPs or recipients to recover loss of profits, costs, attorneys' fees, and actual damages. In lieu of actual damages, the greater of $ 10 for each transmission or $ 25,000 per day may be awarded.
WI	Wis. Stat. § 944. 25	· Requires putting "ADULT ADVERTISEMENT" in the subject line of unsolicited e-mail containing obscene material. · Subjects violators to criminal penalties.

DO: ts