2003 Senate Bill 357 - Michigan Votes

Legislation watch

2003 Senate Bill 357

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Mike Bishop (R) on April 1, 2003, to require senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail (“spam”) or unsolicited sexually explicit e-mails to Michigan residents to conspicuously state in the e-mail the sender's legal name, correct street address, a functioning return electronic address, and a valid internet domain name. The message would be required to include in a subject line "ADV:" as the first four characters for a commercial e-mail, or "ADV:ADULT" as the first nine characters of a sexually explicit e-mail. Also, senders would be required to provide a convenient, no-cost mechanism to notify the sender not to send any future e-mail to the recipient, and for sexually explicit e-mail, a toll-free telephone number to call to be excluded from future mailings. The bill also prohibits the transfer of software which has the purpose of enabling the falsification of e-mail transmission or routing information. Penalties of up to a $5,000 fine and one year in jail are provided. Recipients of unsolicited e-mails, or Internet service providers, would be able to sue for the lesser of the actual damages, $10 per unsolicited message, or $25,000 for each day a violation occurs, plus legal costs.
- Referred to the Senate Technology and Energy Committee on April 1, 2003.
- Reported in the Senate on June 10, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-4) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 19, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which would require the Department of Consumer and Industry Services to establish a "do not spam" list. People could place their e-mail address on the list for three years, and spammers would be prohibited from e-mailing to those addresses. The list would be paid for with revenue from fees, fines, and penalties imposed on spammers. The substitute proposes higher penalties against spammers who violate the bill's provisions, including higher damages payable to spam recipients. It contains other provisions similar to House Bill 4519. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 19, 2003.
Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on June 24, 2003, require the Department of Consumer and Industry Services to establish a "do not spam" list. Senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail would be required to register and pay a fee. People could place their e-mail address on the list for three years, and spammers would be prohibited from e-mailing to those addresses. The list would be paid for with revenue from fees, fines, and penalties imposed on spammers. Senders would be required to include in the e-mail a subject line containing “ADV:” as the first four characters, contact information, and a valid method for recipients to opt out of receiving future e-mails. Penalties of up to a $10,000 fine and one year in jail are provided. The Attorney General, recipients of spam, or Internet service providers could sue for actual damages, $500 per unsolicited message, or $250,000 for each day a violation occurs, plus legal costs. See also House Bill 4519. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 24, 2003.
- Referred to the House Energy and Technology Committee on June 24, 2003.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Could be costly... [by bkelly on June 24, 2003]
Why not outlaw regular junk mail?

The cost of pursuing anonymous online users (of which many spammers are) and an "anti-spam" list could be in the multi-millions.

Compare that with the cost of free-market alternatives, such as privacy software, and the cost is much more effective. Particularly since the cost is paid by the individual and not the rest of society (even those that choose not to operate computers).
Reply

Line

2) Sen. Cassis' journal statement [by Admin003 on June 23, 2003]
Senator Cassis' statement is as follows:

Senate Bill No 357, commonly referred to as an anti-SPAM bill, represents an even larger issue here than just SPAM--some food for thought.

I thought the main principle of our country behind the Bill of Rights is the rights of the individual. That is, his or her ability--responsibility, I believe--is to determine what is good or conversely bad for himself or herself.

The issue deals with individual rights versus. group rights. This bill reinstates the right of the individual to privacy, to regulate what comes in to the most private of domains--one's home.

This is excellent public policy dealing with ever-changing technology and should be a model for other states to follow.
Reply

Line

3) Serious Problems [by cscott on May 23, 2003]
The currently posted version of SB 357 has serious problems. (See my comments on HR 4519.) Fortunately, there is a new revision of 357 that is not yet posted on the Michigan Legislature Web site. The new version proposes a single "do-not-SPAM" list that would permit a recipient to "opt-out" of all E-Mail covered by the legislation with a single action.

The new version isn't perfect though and still has significant problems. While our legislators should certainly support anti-SPAM legislation, they should be careful to craft it in a way that places the entire burdon of responsibility and cost on the SPAM'ers themselves and protects existing and on-going efforts by service providers to limit a broad range of E-Mail abuses.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation