Affiliate Marketing Blog by Shawn Collins

Thanks for visiting the Affiliate Tip blog. Subscribe to my RSS feed or enter your e-mail on the top right to get updates by e-mail.

As I mentioned earlier today, the FTC lost a CAN-SPAM case in Washington state to Impulse Media Group.

I was surprised, disappointed, and confused by the verdict. I hate seeing the bad guys in affiliate marketing stick around for another day.

Anyhow, I came across an explanation for the whole thing from Anne Mitchell, who wrote the affiliate spam section of CAN-SPAM: The Impulse Media Group Lawsuit Decision Explained.

And, the bottom line is, the FTC couldn’t prove their case.

That’s because that section of CAN-SPAM requires either actual or constructive knowledge of the affiliate’s spamming. The actual language of that section requires that the vendor (in this case Impulse Media Group) “knew or should have known” that the affiliates were spamming. And they had to stand to profit from it. And they had to do nothing to stop it.

This language had to be in the affiliate spamming language of CAN-SPAM, because otherwise you could send me email, advertising Joe’s widgets, with Joe never even knowing, and suddenly Joe would be sued for affiliate spamming.

The bottom line is that in order to sue (and prevail) under the affiliate section of CAN-SPAM the vendor has to stand to profit from the spam, and has to have been on notice of the spamming, and done nothing to stop it.

Read Anne’s full commentary at http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-impulse-media-group-lawsuit-decision-explained.

Follow Anne on Twitter - she knows her stuff!

Thanks a lot for sharing your insight, Anne.

Follow Shawn on FriendFeed.