[epub] Re: New MI and UT email compliance laws, July 1st enacted

[Dawn Rivers Baker <editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:40 PM 7/2/05, you wrote:
> My preference? Get an opinion letter from the Federal Trade
> Commission confirming what I believe is correct, that these
> two laws are void on there face, having been superseded by
> the CAN SPAM Act of 2003. They are null and not law.
>
> Why? Then you have a good faith defense to any MI or Utah
> State or private action attempts to enforce these laws.


The only problem with this, John, is that an opinion letter from the 
Federal Trade Commission won't carry either the judicial or legislative 
authority to overturn the law. The FTC might be of the opinion that these 
two laws are questionable or even invalid, but will they file suit? That's 
what's going to be needed here -- taking the thing before a judge to get an 
injunction to stop enforcement and, ultimately, to have the laws thrown out 
as unconstitutional and/or superceded by CAN-SPAM.

And maybe I'm wrong, maybe the FTC would file suit against the governments 
of MI and UT ... personally, I think it would pay to notify both agencies 
(Advocacy and the FTC). It wouldn't hurt if you had the two of them 
throwing hissy fits at these two state legislatures at the same time.

Cheers!
Dawn


Dawn Rivers Baker
Editor/Publisher

The MicroEnterprise Journal
http://www.microenterprisejournal.com
Where the nation's business meets microbusiness.
P.O. Box 41
Sidney, NY 13838
607-428-0521