By David L. Hudson

F ederal legislators continue to target unsolicited commercial e-mail, although no proposal has yet to become law. Last year, at least eight different bills were introduced in the 105th Congress to address problems allegedly caused by junk e-mail. Three anti-spam measures have been introduced already in the 106th Congress, including the:

• Inbox Privacy Act (S. 759);
• E-Mail User Protection Act (H.R. 1910); and
• Can Spam Act (H.R. 2162).

The measure would allow ISPs to sue those who violate their anti-spam policies. Each message that violates an ISP's policy would be subject to a $50 fine, with a maximum of $25,000 per day. The bill would also impose criminal penalties for the unauthorized use of Internet domain names.

Rep. Miller based the Can Spam Act on a 1998 California state law he authored while he was a state assemblyman. He called spam "an issue of consumer protection, privacy, and private property."

Unlike other e-mail measures, the Miller bill tries to skirt First Amendment concerns by making it unlawful to violate an ISP's policy, rather than spelling out e-mail restrictions in the bill itself.

The Can Spam Act is supported by the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (CAUCE), a group of ISPs.

A more restrictive bill was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska) on March 25. The Inbox Privacy Act of 1999 would prohibit the sending of "unsolicited commercial electronic mail to another person" if that person submitted a request not to receive junk e-mail.

Senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail would be required to include the sender's name, physical address, e-mail address, and telephone number in the body of their message. In addition, those who send spam would have to include a "clear and obvious notice" that they would cease sending further e-mails if the recipient types the word "remove" in a response.

The measure would also require Internet service providers (ISPs) to maintain a list of customers who have elected to continue receiving unsolicited commercial e-mail.

The bill would allow state attorneys general and ISPs to bring civil actions to obtain damages caused by spam.

The E-Mail User Protection Act, introduced in the House by Rep. Gene Green (D-Tex.) on May 24, would make it unlawful for any person to send unsolicited bulk e-mail messages that contain "a false, fictitious, or misappropriated" sender name, return address, or name and phone number of a telephone contact person.

The measure would also prohibit the sending of unsolicited bulk e-mail if the recipient requests not to receive further messages. Another provision would prohibit using, selling, or distributing computer software that is "primarily designed" to create false Internet domain information.

The bill would provide for civil and criminal penalties, including up to one year in prison.

The three measures were referred to respective House and Senate Commerce committees but no further action has been taken.

Other measures introduced in the Senate (S. 699) and House (H.R. 612) would empower the Federal Trade Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to extend its authority to deceptive practices regarding advertising and the "sale of goods and services through use of the Internet, including ... unsolicited commercial electronic mail." The bills are aimed primarily at protecting seniors from telemarketing scams.

First Amendment advocates have cautioned that laws restricting commercial e-mail would fail to pass constitutional muster.