What Happens when CAN-SPAM is Enforced for Advertisers

What Happens when CAN-SPAM is Enforced for Advertisers?

Five Cases where CAN-SPAM was Enforced for Advertisers


You’ve likely heard the jokes about CAN-SPAM meaning you ‘can’ spam somebody. The law has been criticized over the years for it’s moderate requirements and lack of enforcement. We, however, have seen and heard about many enforcements in unfortunate scenarios that have resulted in millions of dollars worth of penalties. In an effort to share the importance of remaining CAN-SPAM compliant, we thought we would share a few cases from the last decade.

    • U.S. v. ValueClick – Value Click subsidiary, Hi-Speed Media used deceptive e-mails, banner ads, and pop-ups to drive consumers to its web sites. Valueclick was ordered to pay $2.9 million to settle the charges.
  • U.S. v. BangBros.com – BangBros Inc was sued in 2005 by the U.S. government for not properly labeling sexually explicit images and messages.
  • FTC v. Atkinson – Atkinson, a New Zealand citizen, was ordered to pay $15.5 million for his role in the largest spam gang in the world. 
  • FTC v. Sili Neutraceuticals – Sili Neutraceuticals received a $2.5 million judgment for not providing a physical address in commercial emails.
  • U.S. v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc. – Kodak was forced to pay a $32,000 penalty for not providing a valid unsubscribe mechanism. 

Get Ahead of Your Organization’s Compliance

Download our free compliance handbook to understand why companies are getting fined thousands of dollars and see how you can start improving your company’s email compliance.


Subscribe For Email Updates

Ready to Get Compliant?

Request a demo with our team to see how our customizable solutions can generate more revenue from your outbound marketing efforts.