Skip to content
PeekWellThe Handbook
Join now

CAN-SPAM Act: marketing emails, address and unsubscribe

At a glance

US-14Medium15 U.S.C. §§ 7701 to 7713; 16 CFR Part 316

Peeky looks at the public signals around your marketing email: sign-up forms, a postal address on the page, and wording about how to unsubscribe.

Last checked against the source:

I need to fix thisI need the rule

The rule

The CAN-SPAM Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7701 to 7713, regulates commercial email. It is enforced chiefly by the FTC, and the FTC’s rule is at 16 CFR Part 316. The Act does not require a sender to get permission before the first message. It sets what a message must contain and what a sender must do once someone asks to stop. That is the main contrast with the UK rule in UK-11.

What the Act covers turns on purpose. Section 7702 defines a commercial electronic mail message as one “the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service”. The definition does not limit itself to consumers. A “transactional or relationship message”, such as an account statement, is treated separately, and the FTC says such messages are exempt from most provisions except truthful routing information. Under 16 CFR 316.3, a mixed message is treated as commercial if the subject line would lead a reader to expect promotion, or if the transactional content does not appear at the start of the body.

Section 7704(a)(5)(A) bars initiating a commercial email unless the message provides “(i) clear and conspicuous identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation; (ii) clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity under paragraph (3) to decline to receive further commercial electronic mail messages from the sender; and (iii) a valid physical postal address of the sender.”

Three neighbouring paragraphs complete the core. Paragraph (a)(1) covers header information that is “materially false or materially misleading”. Paragraph (a)(2) covers a subject heading the sender knows, or can be taken to know, would “be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact”. Paragraph (a)(3) requires a functioning return address or other internet-based opt-out mechanism, “clearly and conspicuously displayed”, that stays capable of receiving requests for no less than 30 days after the message. Paragraph (a)(4) bars sending to a person more than 10 business days after the person asks to stop.

The FTC’s rule limits the burden on the person opting out. Under section 316.5, “neither a sender nor any person acting on behalf of a sender may require that any recipient pay any fee, provide any information other than the recipient’s electronic mail address and opt-out preferences, or take any other steps except sending a reply electronic mail message or visiting a single Internet Web page”. Section 316.2 defines a valid physical postal address as a current street address, a post office box registered with the US Postal Service, or a private mailbox registered with a commercial mail receiving agency.

Responsibility is shared. The FTC’s guide says both “the company whose product is promoted in the message and the company that actually sends the message may be held legally responsible”, and adds that hiring another company to handle email marketing does not contract away the duty.

Section 7706 sets out who can enforce. The FTC enforces the Act as if the conduct were an unfair or deceptive practice, other federal agencies enforce it for the sectors they supervise, and state attorneys general and internet access providers can bring civil actions. Section 7706 gives no right of action to individual recipients; the provider right of action in section 7706(g) belongs to internet access service providers. The FTC’s guide says each separate email covered can bring penalties of up to $53,088, a figure that is adjusted over time.

What PeekWell checks and how

US-14 asks what a visitor can see on a public page that bears on marketing email: is there a sign-up, and is there wording about a postal address and how to stop?

The scan is automated. It finds the newsletter and marketing sign-up forms on the pages it visits and reads the wording beside each one. It looks there for a postal address and a way to unsubscribe, and in any marketing content it can reach on those pages, such as a web copy of a newsletter. With a sign-in you give it, that includes your members area. The report quotes what it found, so you can read it in context.

The Act applies to the emails themselves, and a scan cannot read your emails. A postal address seen on a page is a signal, not proof that your messages carry one. It does not see message headers, subject lines, whether an unsubscribe link works or whether a stop request was honoured in time.

The scan has limits, and the report says so. It sees the public pages it visited, and the members area when you give it a sign-in. It does not port-scan, try to get in where it isn’t allowed, run any security test or open addresses nobody linked to. It does not read your contracts or your mailbox. A Passed means the expected wording was observed on the pages scanned. It does not say the emails meet the Act. The method is the same as for UK-11, so only the American rule and cases are set out here.

Why it matters for a company

The FTC’s announced cases are about what was in the emails and what happened after someone asked to stop, which is the part a website scan cannot see. In 2023 the FTC alleged that Experian sent marketing emails to people with free membership accounts, including people who had opted out, and that the emails gave no way to opt out. Experian agreed to a $650,000 civil penalty. In 2024 the FTC announced a proposed settlement with Verkada, which it alleged sent more than 30 million commercial emails over three years without honouring unsubscribe requests, without opt-out options in the messages and without a postal address. The proposed penalty was $2.95 million. The FTC’s announcement calls it the largest it had obtained for this Act.

Both are settlements, so the accounts above are the FTC’s allegations.

The scale of the penalty comes from the counting rule. The guide’s figure applies per email, so a campaign to a long list multiplies it. The size of a sender does not change the rule. In 2006 the FTC announced settlements with two senders: Kodak Imaging Network, over more than 2 million emails with no opt-out method, no opt-out notice and no postal address, and ICE.com, over more than 6,000 emails sent to people who had asked not to receive them.

For a company the consequences are practical. One missing line in a template affects every message sent from it, and a sending vendor’s errors are the business’s own because responsibility is shared.

Smaller companies and larger companies

The Act has no size threshold, and its definitions turn on the purpose of the message. The FTC has brought cases against individuals as well as companies, and the description below of how problems arise in a small company is general.

In a small company the email tool is often set up once. The default footer is edited out for a cleaner look, the postal address is left blank because the business works from home, or the unsubscribe link goes to a form that asks the person to log in. Opt-outs may sit in a shared inbox. A registered post office box or commercial mailbox can serve as the postal address, so a home address does not have to be printed.

In a larger company the problem is spread across tools. Marketing, sales outreach, product notices and partners all send from different systems, each with its own suppression list. A person who opts out of one stream continues to receive another, and a campaign that mixes promotion with an account notice can be treated as commercial. The Experian allegation was of this type: marketing delivered in what the FTC said was described as account information.

Enforcement cases

Published decisions about other companies, listed for context. Each links to the authority's own page. They say nothing about any particular website.

The Officer, squinting at a file.

Larger companies

  • Experian Consumer Services

    FTC (United States), 2023$650,000

    The FTC alleged that Experian sent marketing emails to people with free membership accounts, including people who had opted out, and described them as containing important information about the account. It said the emails gave no way to opt out. Experian agreed to pay a $650,000 civil penalty and to comply with the Act.

    Read the FTC (United States) publication about Experian Consumer Services
  • Verkada Inc.

    FTC (United States), 2024$2.95 million

    The FTC alleged that Verkada sent more than 30 million commercial emails over three years without honouring unsubscribe requests, without opt-out options in the messages and without a physical postal address. The announcement describes a proposed settlement with a $2.95 million penalty, referred to the Department of Justice and subject to court approval. The same action also covered data security.

    Read the FTC (United States) publication about Verkada Inc.
  • Kodak Imaging Network, Inc. (formerly Ofoto)

    FTC and Department of Justice (United States), 2006$26,331 civil penalty, settlement

    The FTC alleged that the company sent a commercial email to more than 2 million recipients with no opt-out method, no notice of the right to opt out and no valid physical postal address. The penalty equalled the gross proceeds of the campaign, and the consent judgment bars future failures of the same kind.

    Read the FTC and Department of Justice (United States) publication about Kodak Imaging Network, Inc. (formerly Ofoto)
  • ICE.com, LLC

    FTC and Department of Justice (United States), 2006$6,500 civil penalty, settlement

    The FTC alleged that the online retailer sent more than 6,000 marketing emails to people who had already asked not to receive them, after the 10 business days the Act allows. The consent judgment includes record-keeping provisions so the FTC can monitor compliance.

    Read the FTC and Department of Justice (United States) publication about ICE.com, LLC
  • Yesmail Inc. (d/b/a @Once Corporation)

    FTC and Department of Justice (United States), 2006$50,717 civil penalty, settlement

    The FTC alleged that the email marketing firm's own spam filter caught some reply-to unsubscribe requests, so it kept sending thousands of commercial emails for its clients more than 10 business days after recipients had asked it to stop.

    Read the FTC and Department of Justice (United States) publication about Yesmail Inc. (d/b/a @Once Corporation)

Smaller companies

  • Optin Global, Inc., Vision Media Limited Corp., Rick Yang and Peonie Pui Ting Chen

    FTC and California Attorney General (United States), 2006$2.4 million judgment, suspended after payment of about $475,000; no admission

    The FTC and the California Attorney General alleged that two Los Angeles residents, through two companies, sent mortgage and other email advertisements with false header information and deceptive subject lines, without telling recipients they could opt out, without an opt-out mechanism and without a valid physical postal address. The settlement requires a working opt-out and a postal address in future messages.

    Read the FTC and California Attorney General (United States) publication about Optin Global, Inc., Vision Media Limited Corp., Rick Yang and Peonie Pui Ting Chen
  • Matthew Olson and Jennifer LeRoy

    FTC (United States), 2006$45,000 judgment, suspended on inability to pay

    The FTC alleged that the two Washington State residents sent email advertisements for mortgages and other products with false sender information and misleading subject lines, with no opt-out mechanism and no physical postal address, using other people's computers without their knowledge. The order bars further failures under the Act.

    Read the FTC (United States) publication about Matthew Olson and Jennifer LeRoy
  • ATM Global Systems, Inc., Mark Richman and Nathaniel Seidman

    FTC and Department of Justice (United States), 2008$75,000 civil penalty; $442,900 judgment otherwise suspended

    The FTC alleged that affiliates paid to promote the company's adult dating site sent emails with false or misleading header information, no opt-out mechanism and no valid postal address. The court order requires the company and its two principals to monitor their affiliates.

    Read the FTC and Department of Justice (United States) publication about ATM Global Systems, Inc., Mark Richman and Nathaniel Seidman

How to fix it

These steps follow the FTC’s guide and rule. Whether a given message is commercial or transactional is for your legal adviser to decide.

  1. Collect every sender. List each tool and agency that sends marketing for you, and who owns each template.
  2. Add the postal address to every marketing template. Use a current street address, a registered post office box or a registered private mailbox.
  3. Label the message as an advertisement and add a clear opt-out line. Put the unsubscribe link where a reader will see it, in plain words.
  4. Keep the opt-out simple. A reply or a single web page, with no fee, no login and nothing asked beyond the email address and preferences.
  5. Honour requests within 10 business days, and sooner if you can. Feed opt-outs into one suppression list that every tool reads. Keep the opt-out working for at least 30 days after each send.
  6. Check headers and subject lines. The From, To and Reply-To details must be accurate, and the subject must reflect what is in the message.
  7. Match the sign-up page to the emails. Say who is sending and what the person will receive, and repeat the postal address and unsubscribe wording on the web version of any newsletter.
  8. Re-scan. Run a scan again once the footer and sign-up wording are updated. The signals Peeky reads on the page should now be present.
<footer>
  <p>You are receiving this advertisement from Example Inc., 123 Main Street, Springfield.</p>
  <p><a href="https://example.com/unsubscribe">Unsubscribe</a> from marketing email.</p>
</footer>

The sample footer carries the three items the statute asks for in section 7704(a)(5)(A). Peeky reports only what it sees, and your legal adviser decides whether your messages meet the Act.

Questions

What are the CAN-SPAM Act requirements?

The FTC's guide lists eight: accurate header information, no deceptive subject lines, identify the message as an advertisement, tell recipients where you are located with a valid physical postal address, explain clearly how to opt out, remember that subscribers and members can still opt out, honour opt-outs promptly, and monitor what others do on your behalf. The core of the statute is in 15 U.S.C. § 7704. The Act does not require consent before the first message, which is the main difference from the UK rule.

How many days do you have to honour an unsubscribe request?

Ten business days. Section 7704(a)(4) bars sending to a person more than 10 business days after the request, and the FTC adds that the opt-out method must keep working for at least 30 days after a message is sent. You cannot charge a fee or ask for more than an email address, and the person need only reply or visit a single web page.

Does a marketing email need a physical address?

Yes, a valid physical postal address of the sender. The FTC says that can be a current street address, a post office box registered with the US Postal Service, or a private mailbox registered with a commercial mail receiving agency.

What are the penalties under the CAN-SPAM Act?

The FTC's guide says each separate email covered can bring penalties of up to $53,088. The figure is adjusted over time, so check the current number. State attorneys general and internet access providers can also sue under section 7706, and the statute names no private right of action for individual recipients.

Is there a law about unsubscribing from marketing emails?

Yes. Section 7704(a)(3) requires a working return address or other internet-based way to opt out, and the FTC's rule at 16 CFR 316.5 limits what a sender may ask of the person. Transactional messages, such as account statements, are treated differently from marketing messages.

Filed with

The rule

CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7701 to 7713 (esp. §§ 7702, 7704 and 7706)

Read the rule (CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7701 to 7713 (esp. §§ 7702, 7704 and 7706))

A case

Experian Consumer Services

FTC (United States), 2023

Read the decision (Experian Consumer Services)

Your site

Is your website affected? Join now to find out.

Join now

Sources

The law

  1. 15 U.S.C. chapter 103, sections 7701 to 7713 (CAN-SPAM Act), United States Code 2023 edition (govinfo)
  2. 15 U.S.C. § 7704: other provisions (header information, subject headings, opt-out, postal address)
  3. 15 U.S.C. § 7702: definitions (commercial electronic mail message, sender, transactional or relationship message)
  4. 15 U.S.C. § 7706: enforcement (FTC, state attorneys general, internet access providers)
  5. 16 CFR Part 316: CAN-SPAM Rule (sections 316.2, 316.3, 316.4 and 316.5), eCFR

Guidance

  1. FTC, CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business (edited January 2024)
  2. FTC, FTC Approves New Rule Provision Under the CAN-SPAM Act, 12 May 2008 (single-page opt-out, no fee, registered post office box or private mailbox as postal address)
  3. FTC, FTC Completes Review of CAN-SPAM Rule, 12 February 2019 (rule kept without changes)
  4. FTC Business Blog, Candid answers to CAN-SPAM questions, 18 August 2015
  5. FTC Consumer Alert, FTC lawsuit reminds businesses: CAN-SPAM means CAN'T spam, 14 August 2023 (Experian)

Decisions and cases

  1. FTC press release, 14 August 2023: FTC charges Experian over marketing emails account holders could not opt out of
  2. FTC press release, 30 August 2024: action against Verkada over data security and CAN-SPAM
  3. FTC press release, 11 May 2006: Internet Marketers Settle FTC Charges (Kodak Imaging Network and ICE.com)
  4. FTC press release, 6 November 2006: Marketer Settles With FTC for Sending Unwanted E-Mails (Yesmail)
  5. FTC press release, 6 April 2006: FTC and California Attorney General settle with Optin Global, Vision Media, Rick Yang and Peonie Chen
  6. California Attorney General, press release of 6 April 2006 on the $2.4 million judgment against Rick Yang and Peonie Pui Ting Chen
  7. FTC press release, 17 April 2006: Button Pushers Settle FTC Spamming Charges (Matthew Olson and Jennifer LeRoy)
  8. FTC press release, 6 May 2008: order against ATM Global Systems and its principals over affiliate email
  9. FTC press release, 23 March 2006: FTC Slams Spammer in Pocketbook (Jumpstart Technologies, $900,000, emails sent weeks after opt-out requests)
  10. FTC press release, 4 March 2008: Cyberheat settlement over affiliate email without opt-out or postal address

Last checked against the source:

For information only. Not legal advice.