Spam Laws

We at WorldVitalRecords.com send out a lot of email to various targeted email lists. These lists are to our own clients and users as well as to our partner's clients and users (Everton, etc.). I was recently remined of the legal requirements when sending email. These laws were implemented to limit unwanted and unsolicited spam. However, they are also a good idea to make sure that you have a postive working relationship with your own clients.

We sent a couple of emails out where the footer with the 'opt out' instructions were not displayed and we got a few phone calls and emails reminding us to do so. We are working hard to have a very customer friendly service reputation. Complying with industry standard, best practices to maintain our reputation is extremely important.

I copied the follwing text from www.spamlaws.com/federal/108hr2515.shtml which lists the requirements for mass emails.

SEC. 101. RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.
(a) REQUIRED INCLUSIONS IN COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL-
(1) INCLUSION OF IDENTIFIER, OPT-OUT, E-MAIL ADDRESS, AND PHYSICAL ADDRESS- No person may initiate in or affecting interstate commerce the transmission, to a covered computer, of any commercial electronic mail message unless the message contains all of the following:
(A) IDENTIFICATION- Clear and conspicuous identification that the message is a commercial electronic mail message.
(B) NOTICE OF OPT-OUT- Clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity under subparagraph (C) to decline to receive future commercial electronic mail messages from the sender or any covered affiliate of the sender.
(C) E-MAIL ADDRESS OR OTHER MECHANISM TO OPT-OUT- A functioning return electronic mail address or other Internet-based mechanism, clearly and conspicuously displayed, that--
(i) a recipient may use to submit, in a manner specified by the sender, a reply electronic mail message or other form of Internet-based communication requesting not to receive any future commercial electronic mail messages from that sender, or any covered affiliate of the sender, at the electronic mail address where the message was received;
(ii) in the case of any such other Internet-based mechanism, when so used, directly submits such a request or clearly and conspicuously provides a manner for submitting such a request; and
(iii) remains capable of receiving such messages or communications for no less than 30 days after the transmission of the original message.
(D) STREET ADDRESS- A valid physical street address of the sender.

MyWay: New Rules Make Firms Track E-Mails, IMs

New Rules Make Firms Track E-Mails, IMs
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061201/D8LNRQB80.html

Dec 1, 12:26 AM (ET)
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. companies will need to keep track of all the e-mails, instant messages and other electronic documents generated by their employees thanks to new federal rules that go into effect Friday, legal experts say.

The rules, approved by the Supreme Court in April, require companies and other entities involved in federal litigation to produce "electronically stored information" as part of the discovery process, when evidence is shared by both sides before a trial.

The change makes it more important for companies to know what electronic information they have and where. Under the new rules, an information technology employee who routinely copies over a backup computer tape could be committing the equivalent of "virtual shredding," said Alvin F. Lindsay, a partner at Hogan & Hartson LLP and expert on technology and litigation.

James Wright, director of electronic discovery at Halliburton Co. (HAL) (HAL), said that large companies are likely to face higher costs from organizing their data to comply with the rules. In addition to e-mail, companies will need to know about things more difficult to track, like digital photos of work sites on employee cell phones and information on removable memory cards, he said.

Both federal and state courts have increasingly been requiring the production of relevant electronic documents during discovery, but the new rules codify the practice, legal experts said.

The rules also require that lawyers provide information about where their clients' electronic data is stored and how accessible it is much earlier in a lawsuit than was previously the case.

There are hundreds of "e-discovery vendors" and these businesses raked in approximately $1.6 billion in 2006, Wright said. That figure could double in 2007, he added.

Another expense will likely stem from the additional time lawyers will have to spend reviewing electronic documents before turning them over to the other side. While the amount of data will be narrowed by electronic searches, some high-paid lawyers will still have to sift through casual e-mails about subjects like "office birthday parties in the pantry" in order to find information relevant to a particular case.

Martha Dawson, a partner at the Seattle-based law firm of Preston Gates & Ellis LLP who specializes in electronic discovery, said the burden of the new rules won't be that great.

Companies will not have to alter how they retain their electronic documents, she said, but will have to do an "inventory of their IT system" in order to know better where the documents are.

The new rules also provide better guidance on how electronic evidence is to be handled in federal litigation, including guidelines on how companies can seek exemptions from providing data that isn't "reasonably accessible," she said. This could actually reduce the burden of electronic discovery, she said.