Are you up to date on all of the legalities around list ownership and CAN-SPAM regulations? Even if you answered “yes”, you may be surprised by the recent ruling by Maine’s Attorney General regarding free access to a government agency’s opted-in email list. Essentially, the Attorney General determined that it was acceptable for an organization to gain access to Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife’s email list for free under the Freedom of Access Act.
Our Email Marketing Strategists share thoughts on this precedent-setting ruling below:
Kimberly: The majority of email marketers will cringe at the precedent Maine has set for our industry moving forward. Decisions like this only create more potential obstacles for those following email marketing best practices. Companies looking for legal loop holes to glean more email addresses are not thinking about the state of our industry nor are they concerned with the future course of their actions. They are simply focused on the “quick fix” approach and truly don’t understand the hornet’s nest they are creating. As ISPs move their focus towards engagement based deliverability – a company like the one in question here will be faced with a serious deliverability dilemma (even more so than they will face today). “Quick fix” list acquisition practices will never garner healthy, engaged subscribers. Hence, these practices do not create a winning formula under engagement based deliverability. Ultimately, the “easy solution” to growing your subscription file may be the death to your ability of reaching the in box at all.
Kristen: The abuse potential in this scenario is clearly alarming. To me, this points out how we really may need to change email law to be permission-based. Hopefully, any organization that attempts to leverage lists of this sort will do the right thing and send only an opt-in campaign and enable the end reader to determine what email they receive.
Julie: I am very disappointed to read about this, and frankly surprised that someone would go to such lengths to obtain email lists, going so far as to appeal to the Attorney General. I could see a greedy executive doing this — I’ve worked for that guy — but the Sportsman’s Alliance is a small nonprofit with an annual budget of $450,000. They obviously believe in quantity over quality, and don’t understand or respect permission-based best practices. My bet is they will use this list, then sell or rent it out to others to abuse. Sure, technically they are within the law since CAN-SPAM does not require permission… and one could liken this to direct marketers buying mailing lists and other public records for direct mail marketing. But where is the protection for consumers? Now that legal precedent has been set, we all could potentially be victims of this email abuse as this trend spreads to other states. Sure, these fishermen can unsubscribe, but is it already too late? Does the Alliance already have the list? It sounds like it. My only hope is that the sportsmen and women of Maine use their “mark as spam” complaint buttons liberally to hopefully impact these shady senders’ deliverability and overall success of any marketing campaigns. It seems like the only way to defend oneself if the courts are taking this stance.
Kelly: Ultimately, this ruling hurts not only Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, who was practicing clean email marketing practices, but the email marketing industry as a whole. Allowing this type of access erodes subscriber confidence and trust in organizations to whom they’ve provided permission and entrusted with their email privacy. In this case, the original organization is left with no leg to stand on and, essentially, no list that they’ve worked hard to cultivate and nurture.
What are your thoughts on the Freedom of Access Act and this ruling? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Kelly Lorenz
Email Marketing Strategist at Bronto
@KNLorenz
Related posts:
- Email Strategists’ Round Table: What Facebook’s Email Platform Means for Marketers Facebook announced this week that it will be launching its...
- Email Strategists’ Round Table: The Emerging Relationship of Email & Twitter Has anyone raised this question in a recent marketing meeting...
- Strategists Sound Off: Facebook’s New Opt-In Functionality If you haven’t heard the news about Facebook allowing marketers...
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Kelly,
here in Cary, NC you are notified before responding that all correspondence is considered public knowledge – including your email address. The interesting thing is that 3 groups have requested the list, not realizing it works both ways. I requested their contact information too – and let the requestors know that sending unsolicited emails to that list may not be in their best interest – even if it were legal. Seems that knowing others knew who they were deterred any spamming.
–Jack
Jack,
Hello neighbor! I think notification and transparency are absolutely key because it alerts subscribers that this could potentially happen. These days, I would say most marketers have somewhere on their sign-up form or privacy policy that their subscribers’ information will not be shared with third parties, so having that notification is great on the list owner’s part as it goes that extra step to ensure expectations are set properly.
Thanks for commenting!
Kelly