Skip to content
SpamtacularWhere spam and policy collide
  • Home
  • About Mickey
  • Comment Policy
  • Privacy Policy

When is a press release an advertisement?

3 March 2010

One of the first things I learned when I became a legal assistant is that there are rarely any pat answers. A blanket assertion is almost always wrong. (Did you see the attorney-like weasel wording there?)

There has been an interesting discussion on Twitter today regarding a February Techcrunch post (and wow is a half month kind of stale for Twitter discussions). Thanks to some imprecise language by Michael Arrington, the question has arisen as to whether a press release is subject to CAN-SPAM.

First, let me begin by saying that I agree with Laura Atkins, who says that “spam” is an ill-defined term. In his post, Mr. Arrington tosses around the term “spammer” rather blithely, without actually saying how he defines it. So, the whole argument is really about an ill-defined word used in conjunction with what is ultimately a customer service complaint.

Read moreSending email to wireless domains?

But, the conversation on Twitter was about the applicability of the CAN-SPAM Act to press releases. Thankfully, everyone in the conversation agreed on one thing: Whether CAN-SPAM applies or not, people who distribute press releases should afford recipients the opportunity to opt-out.

Now, past that, things get murky, and that is thanks to the very law that we are talking about. With the exception of the mandate not to use forged or misleading headers, CAN-SPAM only applies to commercial email, which is defined in the statute:

The term “commercial electronic mail message” means any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose).

15 USC 7702(2)(A).

Read morePrior Business Relationships are irrelevant

That makes perfect sense, right? In fact, the Federal Trade Commission’s thoughts on the subject pretty much say “‘Primary purpose’ means what we think a normal person thinks it does.” So, what’s the problem?

First of all, understand that using a service to handle the distribution of your press release doesn’t let you off of the hook for CAN-SPAM compliance. If the purpose of your press release is to notify the world’s reporters of your outstanding product or service (because everyone loves “free advertising” on the nightly news, right?), or something related to your outstanding product or service, then it’s probably a commercial electronic mail message. Otherwise the spammers of the world (like Alan Ralsky who is going to prison for his part in a pump-and-dump stock scheme) would just need to relabel their email “press release” and it would be completely legal. Calling a hog a duck won’t give it the ability to fly.

But most people think of press releases as being purely announcements or information dumps. Something that is not directly related to your product or service wouldn’t fall inside the “primary purpose” of advertising or promoting your product or service.

So, in short, if your press release is entirely an announcement (for instance, giving information regarding your CEO’s press availability or the promotion of Susie Superduper to Executive Vice President), then it probably falls outside of the definition of CAN-SPAM. If you are announcing the dates, times, and extraordinarily low prices of your next big “SUPER MONDO BLOWOUT GARGANTUAN SALES EXTRAVAGANZA” in an emailed press release, then you need to make certain that you are following CAN-SPAM’s dictates.

Likewise, if you are distributing press releases, you should probably treat your business like it were an Email Service Provider. That means you should handling opt-outs and managing bounces.

Does it apply in this case? We don’t know. Mr. Arrington never actually released the contents of the “press release” that set him off. But, he did release a screen shot of a list of several of their mailings, and a lot of them look like they are commercial in nature instead of being a more “announcement-type” press release. I think they probably should have complied with CAN-SPAM. But, of course, that’s the FTC’s call, not mine.

So, now what do you think? Are press releases never advertisements? Are they always advertisements? Did I draw the line in the wrong place?

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pocket
  • Email

Bibliography

  1. Michael Arrington (2010, February 19), I Pissed Off A PR Spammer Today. Retrieved from Techcrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/19/i-pissed-off-a-pr-spammer-today/.
  2. Laura Atkins (2009, October 9), Defining spam. Retrieved from http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2009/10/defining-spam/.
  3. Federal Trade Commission (2008, May), Primary Purpose, (eCFR), . Retrieved from http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=2ac2f16353c2496191874928405e5c16&node=16:1.0.1.3.40.0.32.3&rgn=div8.
  4. United States (2003, December 16), 15 USC 7702(2)(A), (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003), . Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7702.
Tags: Can Spam Act 2003, Laura Atkins, Michael Arrington, Primary purpose

Calendar

March 2010
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
« Feb   Apr »

Archives

  • November 2021
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • January 2017
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • November 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • September 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2012
  • April 2012
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • March 2011
  • January 2011
  • November 2010
  • July 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • March 2009
  • January 2009
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • April 2008

Categories

  • Administrivia
  • Industry
  • Law
  • Policy
  • Spam
  • Uncategorized

Copyright Spamtacular 2023 | Theme by ThemeinProgress | Proudly powered by WordPress