The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act of 2003 is a law passed in 2003 establishing the United States' first national standards for the sending of commercial e-mail.

Introduced by Republican Conrad Burns, the act passed both the House and Senate during the 108th United States Congress and was signed into law by President George W. Bush in December 2003 and was enacted on January 1, 2004.

[3] It also prevents states from enacting stronger anti-spam protections, and prohibits individuals who receive spam from suing spammers except under laws not specific to e-mail.

The Act has been largely unenforced,[4] despite a letter to the FTC from Senator Burns, who noted that "Enforcement is key regarding the CAN-SPAM legislation."

On December 20, 2005 the FTC reported that the volume of spam has begun to level off, and due to enhanced anti-spam technologies, less was reaching consumer inboxes.

[7] Later modifications changed the original CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 by (1) Adding a definition of the term "person"; (2) Modifying the term "sender"; (3) Clarifying that a sender may comply with the act by including a post office box or private mailbox; and (4) Clarifying that to submit a valid opt-out request, a recipient cannot be required to pay a fee, provide information other than his or her email address and opt-out preferences, or take any other steps other than sending a reply email message or visiting a single page on an Internet website.

[8] However, CAN-SPAM does not ban spam emailing outright, but imposes laws on using deceptive marketing methods through headings that are "materially false or misleading".

Although according to the law, legitimate businesses and marketers should be conscientious regarding the aspects mentioned above, there are misinterpretations and fraudulent practices that are viewed as criminal offenses: CAN-SPAM provides a limited private right of action to Internet Access Services that have been adversely affected by the receipt of emails that violate the Act;[21] and does not allow natural persons to bring suit.

Despite this heightened standard, private CAN-SPAM lawsuits have cropped up around the country, as plaintiffs seek to take advantage of the statutory damages available under the Act.

[citation needed] CAN-SPAM preempts (supersedes) state anti-spam laws that do not deal with false or deceptive activity.

[23] The relevant portion of CAN-SPAM reads: Though this move was criticized by some anti-spam activists, some legal commentators praised it, citing a heavily punitive California law seen as over broad and a wave of allegedly dubious suits filed in Utah.

It allows enforcement by the FTC, state attorneys general, Internet service providers, and other federal agencies for special categories of spammers (such as banks).

Individuals can also sue using state laws about fraud, such as Virginia's that gives standing based on actual damages, in effect limiting enforcement to ISPs.

CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email) stated: This legislation fails the most fundamental test of any anti-spam law, in that it neglects to actually tell any marketers not to spam.

[29]AOL Executive Vice President and General Counsel Randall Boe stated: [CAN-SPAM] not only empowered us to help can the spam, but also to can the spammers as well.

... Our actions today clearly demonstrate that CAN-SPAM is alive and kicking — and we're using it to give hardcore, outlaw spammers the boot.Advertising organizations such as the Data & Marketing Association (DMA) have sought to weaken implementation of the law in various ways.

[35] On April 1, 2006, Mounir Balarbi, of Tangier, Morocco, was the first person outside the United States to have an arrest warrant validated under the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.

[43][44] Two other men, Andrew D. Ellifson, 31, of Scottsdale, Arizona, and Kirk F. Rogers, 43, of Manhattan Beach, California, also pled guilty to charges under the CAN-SPAM Act related to this spamming operation.

[45] In July 2005, the Federal Trade Commission lodged civil CAN-SPAM complaints against nine companies alleging that they were responsible for spam emails that had been sent by them or by their affiliates.

[55][56] The Department of Justice asserted that the CAN-SPAM statute imposed strict liability on producers such as Impulse Media for the actions of its non-agent, independent-contractor affiliates.

[59] In March 2006, the FTC obtained its largest settlement to date—a $900,000 consent decree against Jumpstart Technologies, LLC for numerous alleged violations of the CAN-SPAM act.