| Comment Number: | OL-102338 |
| Received: | 4/13/2004 8:25:33 PM |
| Organization: | Internet Business Ideas LLC |
| Commenter: | Josh Anderson |
| State: | ID |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | CAN-SPAM ANPR |
| Docket ID: | [3084-AA96] |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. There are so many problems and costs associated with this idea, and so much damage done to consumers and businesses alike, that I feel I must urge you to consider this matter most carefully. Requirement of the use of suppression lists will seriously damage many of the legitimate publications available on the net. My specific concern is for harm to publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will very likely have that effect. There's also the potential for significant harm to consumers, because of the problem of properly knowing their intent when they unsubscribe from a list. On top of that, these suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less. I was quite surprised at the potential problems this ruling could involve, and urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems. It should also stand as significant that a large portion of revenue generated by small business comes from repeat business brought in by returning customers. The definition of Transactional Email should be broad enough that it does not prohibit the continuation of client provider realtionships. Service and product providers should be allowed to provied previous clients and customers offers for products and servicese that may be of benifit to them via email. The client or customer should be given the opportunity to opt-out or unsubscribe from such mailings however it would not be advisable for the legislation to force the destruction of an ongoing commercial relationship via email between a company and their previous customers. Legislation that prohibits the future communication between the customer and the provider or services or products that they have been a patron of previously will ultimatly be destructive to the development of such conusmer trust relationships that are so essential to a healthy economy. Respectfully, Josh Anderson Rexburg, Idaho