BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1629
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1629 (Miller)
As Amended August 20, 1998
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: 70-3 (May 18, 1998) SENATE: 38-0 (August 26, 1998)
Original Committee Reference: CONPRO
SUMMARY : Prohibits the unauthorized use of electronic mail
networks to send unsolicited e-mail advertisements (spam) and
exempts specified non-profit organizations from the state's
telemarketing regulatory scheme.
The Senate amendments clarify the existing spamming provisions of
the bill and add a new component related to exemptions from
telemarketing regulation. Specifically, the amendments:
1) Exempt specified non-profit business organizations (chambers of
commerce, business leagues, real estate boards, and boards of
trade) that have an established history in the state from the
registration and bonding requirements for telemarketing
sellers.
2) Increase the maximum daily civil damages for spamming
violations from $15,000 to $25,000.
3) Establish a specific penalty for domain name forgery with a
fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
4) Clarify that the spamming provisions apply only to networks
located in this state.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1) Prohibited the practice of sending unsolicited advertising by
electronic mail, which commonly is known as "spamming", by
clarifying that electronic mail service providers control the
use of their services and equipment.
2) Allowed for the recovery of civil damages against spammers,
either for actual monetary damages or liquidated damages of $50
per spam, up to $15,000 per day, whichever is greater, and the
recovery of reasonable attorney's fees.
3) Prohibited the unauthorized use of computer domain names by
adding domain name forgery to the list of computer crimes
punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for
up to three years.
FISCAL EFFECT : No significant state costs.
COMMENTS :
1) According to the author's office, this measure is intended to
AB 1629
Page 2
prevent spamming and domain name fraud. Domain names, such as
, can be considered the addresses of the paths
used to transmit e-mail via the Internet. This bill seeks to
stop spamming by: a) allowing electronic mail service providers
to sue spammers for damage they cause to electronic
mail networks; and b) criminalizing unauthorized domain name use.
Supporters argue that Internet users face a daily onslaught of
unsolicited e-mail from Internet businesses advertising goods
and services. Known as spamming, the practice of sending mass
e-mails often imposes a significant time burden on Internet
users and often can slow down or disrupt on-line service.
2) AB 1676 (Bowen), pending on the Senate Floor, is also an
anti-spamming bill. AB 1676 takes a different, but
complementary, approach to the junk e-mail problem by: a)
allowing consumers the option of opting-out of spam
distribution lists; and b) making spamming a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment.
3) Opponents claim that this bill may be an unconstitutional
infringement on free speech and that any government regulation
of the Internet may have a dampening effect on Internet
commerce. Additionally, some opponents argue that the bill is
a "meat-ax" approach to the spamming problem and that what is
needed is a more creative approach that distinguishes between
legitimate charitable and other advertising, and that which is
a willful, intentional abuse of e-mail.
4) The California Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) is the sponsor of
the provisions added in the Senate exempting specified
non-profit business organizations from California's regulatory
scheme aimed at fraudulent telemarketing sales practices. The
Chamber argues that an implied exemption has been in place
since the inception of telemarketing regulation for
organizations like itself. The Chamber further states it is
seeking relief from the administrative burden of the
registration requirements since it does not engage in
activities that are the primary target of the law.
Additionally, the Chamber suggests that a sufficient level of
consumer protection would be retained for its members since: i)
exempted organizations would have to demonstrate a history of
incorporation in the state; and ii) existing law's underlying
enforcement mechanism for unlawful advertising would continue
to apply to Chamber telemarketing activities.
Analysis prepared by : Sailaja Cherukuri / aconpro / (916)
319-2089
FN
043132