BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                          AB 1676  
                                                         Page 1

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1676 (Bowen)
As Amended April 28, 1998 
Majority vote

  CONSUMER PROTECTION  13-0        APPROPRIATIONS    12-7             
  

Ayes:  Davis, Runner, Alquist,   Ayes:  Baca, Cardenas, Escutia, 
      Cedillo, Figueroa, Firestone,    Hertzberg, Kuehl, Papan, 
      Frusetta, Machado, Morrissey,    Shelley, Strom-Martin, 
      Torlakson, Strom-Martin,         Sweeney, Thompson, Thomson,  
 
      Takasugi, Wildman                Washington

                                 Nays:  Ashburn, Ackerman, Aguiar,  

                                       Brewer, Granlund, Olberg, 
                                       Poochigian

  SUMMARY  :  Prohibits the practice of sending unsolicited commercial  
e-mail, which is commonly referred to as spam or junk e-mail.   
Specifically,  this   bill  :

1) Prohibits the sending of unsolicited commercial e-mail to a  
   recipient if the recipient has notified the sender to cease.

2) Prohibits any person or entity conducting business in the state  
   from sending unsolicited advertising material via e-mail unless  
   the person or entity establishes a toll-free telephone number  
   for individuals to call to notify the sender not to send any  
   further unsolicited e-mail advertisements.

3) Makes it an infraction, punishable by a fine of $250, for each  
   and every transmission sent in violation of the bill's  
   prohibitions, including unsolicited faxed documents.
        
4) Protects Internet service providers (ISPs) from liability  
   against spamming claims if ISPs merely carry e-mail  
   transmissions over their networks.

  FISCAL EFFECT  :  None 

  COMMENTS  :

1) According to the author's office, this measure is intended to  
   prevent spam, the junk mail of the Information Age.  This bill  
   seeks to accomplish this by giving individual consumers the  
   right to opt-out of spam distribution lists and fining  
   individuals who do not comply with consumers' wishes.

   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, which  







                                                          AB 1676  
                                                         Page 2

   eventually imposes a financial cost on individual consumers. 

   Spam opponents note that simply deleting junk e-mail does not  
   end the 
problem for consumers or ISPs because there is no real cost to  
sending mass e-mails.  Rather, junk e-mail shifts the majority of  
advertising costs from the advertiser to the recipient because  
individuals and their ISPs bear the costs in lost time, damaged  
equipment, lost productivity and lost business opportunities.

   The argument for a legislative solution is that unsolicited  
   commercial e-mail imposes a cost on recipients and advertisers  
   should be required to gain affirmative assent from consumers  
   before sending e-mail to them. 

2) This bill is modeled on the state's existing junk fax law,  
   which allows individuals to opt-out of receiving unsolicited  
   advertising via fax and imposes a $500 fine for each violation  
   [AB 2438, (Katz), Chapter 564, Statutes of 1992].  However, as  
   amended, this measure reduces this fine to $250.

3) AB 1629 (Miller), pending in the Judiciary Committee, is also  
   an anti-spamming bill.  AB 1629 takes a different approach to  
   the junk e-mail problem by: a) allowing ISPs, the oftentimes  
   innocent transmitters of junk e-mail, to recover damages from  
   spammers; and b) protecting domain names, which are the  
   addresses for paths used to transmit e-mail via the Internet.

   In addition, the author of this bill also has introduced AB  
   2640, pending in the Judiciary Committee, to address the  
   spamming problem by creating additional civil remedies  
   recoverable by ISPs for unauthorized use of domain names.

   Given the other bills pending on the issue, members may want to  
   consider whether the two approaches in the bills, individual  
   consumer opt-out and empowering ISPs to stop the transmission  
   of junk e-mail, in conflict or complementary.

4) Opponents of this bill 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, critics question whether this bill will be  
   effective against spam that originates from outside of  
   California's borders.  Specifically, they ask whether if the  
   sender of an out-of-state or offshore junk e-mail would be  
   subject to the provisions of this bill and whether the  
   provisions could be enforced.


  Analysis prepared by  :  Sailaja Cherukuri / aconpro / (916)  
   319-2089


                                                                     FN  







                                                          AB 1676  
                                                         Page 3

037917