Child Protection Registry Acts

Last updated

A child protection registry or do not contact registry is an electronic database established by statute, to which a parent or guardian may add an "electronic contact point" that is used by or accessible to a child. The statute prohibits certain communications to contact points listed on the registry, and provides criminal penalties for violations of the prohibition.

Contents

Child protection registry acts have been enacted in Utah and Michigan.

Utah Child Protection Registry Act

The Utah Child Protection Registry Act, Utah Statutes 13-39-101 et seq., [1] became effective on July 1, 2005. [2] The Act prohibits the sending of a "communication" to a "contact point" that is on the registry for more than 30 days, if the communication either "advertises a product or service that a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing," or "contains or advertises material that is harmful to minors."

A "contact point" is defined as "an electronic identification to which a communication may be sent," and includes an e-mail address, or any of several other types of identifiers, to the extent provided by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection in the Department of Commerce under rulemaking authority granted by the statute, an instant message identity, a telephone number, a facsimile number, or a similar electronic address.

The Department of Commerce has also issued a policy document specifying those products that it deems to be products or services that a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing within the meaning of the statute, i.e., "an alcoholic beverage or product, any form of tobacco, pornographic materials, and any product or service that is illegal in Utah (whether purchased by a minor or an adult), such as illegal drugs, prostitution and gambling." [3]

The Act provides that the consent of a minor to receive such a communication is not a defense to a violation, and that an Internet service provider is not liable for violating the Act "for solely transmitting a message" across its network.

The Act provides that it is a defense to an action for a violation that the violator "reasonably relied" on the electronic registry, and took "reasonable measures to comply" with the Act.

The Utah Child Registry website provides online registration for parents, and for marketers who wish to check their e-mail addresses and other contact points against the database. [4] The Department of Commerce has adopted implementing regulations that charge a fee of $.005 per address checked against the registry, with one-fifth of the fee going to the State of Utah, and four-fifths going to the provider of the registry. [5]

The operator of the registry is UnSpam, Inc., a Utah corporation that also operates the Michigan Child Registry.

A pornography industry trade group brought a legal challenge to the Utah Child Protection Registry Act. A federal judge found the case without merit; the trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, subsequently dropped the case. Free Speech Coalition v. Shurtleff, No. 2:05-cv-00949 (D. Utah Mar. 23, 2007) [6]

Michigan Children’s Protection Registry Act

The Michigan Children's Protection Registry Act, (Michigan Compiled Laws 752.1061) was approved and became effective on July 21, 2004. [7]

The legislation is virtually identical to the Utah Child Protection Registry Act, in that it establishes a registry of child contact points [8] and prohibits the sending of a message to a contact point contained on the registry "if the primary purpose of the message is to, directly or indirectly, advertise or otherwise link to a message that advertises a product or service that a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing, viewing, possessing, participating in, or otherwise receiving." The Michigan Act does not contain the "harmful to minors" language of the Utah statute, however.

Implementing regulations have been adopted by the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. [9]

The Act provides for the operator of the registry to charge a fee not exceeding 3 cents per contact point checked against the registry, with 85 percent of the fee going to the operator of the registry, and 15 percent of the fee going to the state.

Controversy

UnSpam, Inc., the company that was awarded contracts to operate the Utah and Michigan child protection registries, lobbied for the enactment of the child protection registry acts in those states [10] and lobbied for enactment of similar laws in other states. [11]

In April 2007, the Salt Lake City Tribune reported that the Utah Attorney General's Office agreed to pay some of the attorney fees in defending the legal challenge brought by the Free Speech Coalition. The CEO of UnSpam was quoted as saying that the company could not afford to pay the legal fees involved in defending the lawsuit.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spamming</span> Unsolicited electronic messages, especially advertisements

Spamming is the use of messaging systems to send multiple unsolicited messages (spam) to large numbers of recipients for the purpose of commercial advertising, non-commercial proselytizing, or any prohibited purpose, or simply repeatedly sending the same message to the same user. While the most widely recognized form of spam is email spam, the term is applied to similar abuses in other media: instant messaging spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, Web search engine spam, spam in blogs, wiki spam, online classified ads spam, mobile phone messaging spam, Internet forum spam, junk fax transmissions, social spam, spam mobile apps, television advertising and file sharing spam. It is named after Spam, a luncheon meat, by way of a Monty Python sketch about a restaurant that has Spam in almost every dish in which Vikings annoyingly sing "Spam" repeatedly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telemarketing</span> Method of direct marketing

Telemarketing is a method of direct marketing in which a salesperson solicits prospective customers to buy products, subscriptions or services, either over the phone or through a subsequent face to face or web conferencing appointment scheduled during the call. Telemarketing can also include recorded sales pitches programmed to be played over the phone via automatic dialing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">CAN-SPAM Act of 2003</span> American law to regulate bulk e-mail

The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act of 2003 is a law passed in 2003 establishing the United States' first national standards for the sending of commercial e-mail. The law requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce its provisions. Introduced by Republican Conrad Burns, the act passed both the House and Senate during the 108th United States Congress and was signed into law by President George W. Bush in December 2003 and was enacted on January 1, 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mobile phone spam</span> Unwanted communication through a mobile phone

Mobile phone spam is a form of spam, directed at the text messaging or other communications services of mobile phones or smartphones. As the popularity of mobile phones surged in the early 2000s, frequent users of text messaging began to see an increase in the number of unsolicited commercial advertisements being sent to their telephones through text messaging. This can be particularly annoying for the recipient because, unlike in email, some recipients may be charged a fee for every message received, including spam. Mobile phone spam is generally less pervasive than email spam, where in 2010 around 90% of email is spam. The amount of mobile spam varies widely from region to region. In North America, mobile spam steadily increased after 2008 and accounted for half of all mobile phone traffic by 2019. In parts of Asia up to 30% of messages were spam in 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Email spam</span> Unsolicited electronic advertising by email

Email spam, also referred to as junk email, spam mail, or simply spam, is unsolicited messages sent in bulk by email (spamming). The name comes from a Monty Python sketch in which the name of the canned pork product Spam is ubiquitous, unavoidable, and repetitive. Email spam has steadily grown since the early 1990s, and by 2014 was estimated to account for around 90% of total email traffic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair Debt Collection Practices Act</span> U.S. consumer protection law

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Pub. L. 95-109; 91 Stat. 874, codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1692 –1692p, approved on September 20, 1977, is a consumer protection amendment, establishing legal protection from abusive debt collection practices, to the Consumer Credit Protection Act, as Title VIII of that Act. The statute's stated purposes are: to eliminate abusive practices in the collection of consumer debts, to promote fair debt collection, and to provide consumers with an avenue for disputing and obtaining validation of debt information in order to ensure the information's accuracy. The Act creates guidelines under which debt collectors may conduct business, defines rights of consumers involved with debt collectors, and prescribes penalties and remedies for violations of the Act. It is sometimes used in conjunction with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Email marketing is the act of sending a commercial message, typically to a group of people, using email. In its broadest sense, every email sent to a potential or current customer could be considered email marketing. It involves using email to send advertisements, request business, or solicit sales or donations. Email marketing strategies commonly seek to achieve one or more of three primary objectives: build loyalty, trust, or brand awareness. The term usually refers to sending email messages with the purpose of enhancing a merchant's relationship with current or previous customers, encouraging customer loyalty and repeat business, acquiring new customers or convincing current customers to purchase something immediately, and sharing third-party ads.

Email harvesting or scraping is the process of obtaining lists of email addresses using various methods. Typically these are then used for bulk email or spam.

Telephone call recording laws are legislation enacted in many jurisdictions, such as countries, states, provinces, that regulate the practice of telephone call recording. Call recording or monitoring is permitted or restricted with various levels of privacy protection, law enforcement requirements, anti-fraud measures, or individual party consent.

A robocall is a phone call that uses a computerized autodialer to deliver a pre-recorded message, as if from a robot. Robocalls are often associated with political and telemarketing phone campaigns, but can also be used for public service, emergency announcements, or scammers. Multiple businesses and telemarketing companies use auto-dialing software to deliver prerecorded messages to millions of users. Some robocalls use personalized audio messages to simulate an actual personal phone call. The service is also viewed as prone to association with scams.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electronic registration mark</span> Proposed category of trademark

An electronic registration mark is a proposed category of trademark that would restrict the use of trademarked words and phrases in online advertising.

ePrivacy Directive

Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive2002/58/EC on Privacy and Electronic Communications, otherwise known as ePrivacy Directive (ePD), is an EU directive on data protection and privacy in the digital age. It presents a continuation of earlier efforts, most directly the Data Protection Directive. It deals with the regulation of a number of important issues such as confidentiality of information, treatment of traffic data, spam and cookies. This Directive has been amended by Directive 2009/136, which introduces several changes, especially in what concerns cookies, that are now subject to prior consent.

Make Money Fast is a title of an electronically forwarded chain letter created in 1988 which became so infamous that the term is often used to describe all sorts of chain letters forwarded over the Internet, by e-mail spam, or in Usenet newsgroups. In anti-spammer slang, the name is often abbreviated "MMF".

Consumer protection is the practice of safeguarding buyers of goods and services, and the public, against unfair practices in the marketplace. Consumer protection measures are often established by law. Such laws are intended to prevent businesses from engaging in fraud or specified unfair practices to gain an advantage over competitors or to mislead consumers. They may also provide additional protection for the general public which may be impacted by a product even when they are not the direct purchaser or consumer of that product. For example, government regulations may require businesses to disclose detailed information about their products—particularly in areas where public health or safety is an issue, such as with food or automobiles.

The Electronic Commerce Protection Act is anti-spam legislation introduced in 2009 by the Government of Canada at the House of Commons.

<i>American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland</i> Judgment on Constitutional issue

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, is a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a constitutional challenge—both facially and as-applied to internet communications—to an Ohio statute prohibiting the dissemination or display to juveniles of certain sexually-explicit materials or performances. The Sixth Circuit panel declined to resolve the constitutional issue but, instead, certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the statute. The Ohio Supreme Court answered both questions affirmatively and placed a narrowing construction on the statute. Since the Ohio Supreme Court's decision, the Sixth Circuit has not reheard the case.

The Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, is Canada's anti-spam legislation that received Royal Assent on December 15, 2010. The Act replaced Bill C-27, the Electronic Commerce Protection Act (ECPA), which was passed by the House of Commons, but died due to the prorogation of the second session of the 40th Canadian Parliament on December 30, 2009. The Act went into effect July 1, 2014.

<i>Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.</i>

Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, is a 2009 court opinion in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the standing requirements necessary for private plaintiffs to bring suit under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, or CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. ch. 103, as well as the scope of the CAN-SPAM Act's federal preemption. Prior to this case, the CAN-SPAM Act's standing requirements had not been addressed at the Court of Appeals level, and only the Fourth Circuit had addressed the CAN-SPAM Act's preemptive scope.

<i>Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder</i>

Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321 is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act did not violate the First Amendment.

<i>Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc.</i>

Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc., 469 F.3d 348, is a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in which Mummagraphics, Inc. is sued by Omega World Travel, Inc. (Omega) and Cruise.com after Mummagraphic alleged that they received 11 commercial e-mail messages in violation of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act of 2003 as well as Oklahoma state law. In the initial filing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had awarded summary judgment to Omega on all of Mummagraphics' claims finding that the commercial emails from Omega did not violate the CAN-SPAM Act, and that the CAN-SPAM Act preempted Oklahoma state law. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

References

  1. ↑ Utah Code – Title 13 – Chapter 39 – Child Protection Registry Archived June 22, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  2. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2004-07-28. Retrieved 2007-05-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  3. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-06-25. Retrieved 2007-05-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. ↑ Utah Child Protection Registry : Home Archived July 1, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  5. ↑ DAR File No. 28058 (Rule R152-39) UT Bull 2005-14 (7/15/2005) Archived August 19, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  6. ↑ http://www.unspam.com/pdf/318/Judge_Rules__Arguments_Against_Utah_Registry_Law_Completely_Without_Merit.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  7. ↑ Enrolled bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2003-2004/publicact/pdf/2004-PA-0241.pdf
  8. ↑ "Michigan Children's Protection Registry : Home". www.protectmichild.com. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
  9. ↑ "MICHIGAN CHILDREN'S PROTECTION REGISTRY RULES". Archived from the original on 2007-09-29.
  10. ↑ "CHILD PROTECTION REGISTRY". www.legislature.mi.gov. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
  11. ↑ Magill, Ken (2006-01-17). "Unspam Eyes Four New States". Archived from the original on 2007-09-27.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.