| Comment Number: | OL-100038 |
| Received: | 8/21/2004 6:58:07 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Colleen Proctor |
| State: | Not in the US |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | Definitions, Implementation, and Reporting Requirements Under the CAN-SPAM Act (NPRM) |
| Docket ID: | [3084-AA96] |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
While I fully understand and endorse the need for stringent UCE/spam control I see nothing to protect legitimate online businesses from false or malicious complaints. Regardless of the definition, I have no doubt that legitimate business owners will comply It seems to me that the current canspam act simply hinders legitimate business and the spammers will simply find a way to get around the law. We have seen this all year with no decline in spam but additional cost and time for legitimate business owners to comply. No doubt this is not the correct forum in which to voice my opinion however after spending much time on the FTC web site I am unable to find any other venue. What protection is in place for legitimate business?