CAN-Spam Preemption – NMP Skip to main content

CAN-Spam Preemption

Feb 06, 2015

Question: Our bank’s compliance officer has the view that CAN-SPAM requirements preempt all state laws that are similar to it. Are there any instances where state law trumps CAN-SPAM?

Answer: CAN-SPAM preempts any statute, regulation, or rule of a state, or even a political subdivision of a state, that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to send commercial messages – except to the extent that any such statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto. [15 USC § 7707(b)(1)]

Thus, CAN-SPAM carves out an exception from preemption for state laws that govern the use of commercial email by prohibiting fraud or deception in messages or attachments.

CAN-SPAM does not preempt the applicability of (1) state laws that are not specific to electronic mail, including state trespass, contract or tort laws, or (2) state laws that relate to acts of fraud or computer crime. [15 USC § 7707(b)(2)]

State laws that are not specific to commercial email, but would apply to commercial email (together with other types of communication or activity), are not preempted; neither are state laws that address computer fraud or crime more generally.

Although not specific to mortgage banking, policies and procedures used by "Internet access services" to block spam are also protected from preemption. Internet access services’ policies and procedures are preempted from CAN-SPAM with respect to declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or store certain types of electronic mail messages. [15 USC § 7707(c)]

Questions as to which state anti-spam laws are preempted, and to what extent such laws are preempted, are ultimately answered through the legal interpretation of courts. So far, the issue of CAN-SPAM preemption has been addressed by three Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals: the Fourth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit.



Jonathan Foxx is president and managing director of Lenders Compliance Group, Brokers Compliance Group, Servicers Compliance Group and Vendors Compliance Group, national companies devoted to providing regulatory compliance advice and counsel to the mortgage industry. He may be contacted by phone at (516) 442-3456 or by e-mail at [email protected].

 

About the author
Published
Feb 06, 2015
Insuring The Risk To Lenders At Closing

Traditional protections like title insurance and closing protection letters may leave lenders exposed to significant settlement, funding, and fraud-related losses

CHLA Uses Trump Mortgage Order To Renew Push For LO Comp Reform

Community lenders want more flexibility over employee compensation, closing-cost estimates, down payment assistance, and federal supervision of smaller IMBs

Servicers Begin Testing Systems Ahead of VA Partial Claim Deadline

VA lenders and servicers have until Nov. 28 to implement the new loss mitigation waterfall and Partial Claim Program

ROAD Act’s Housing Incentive May Be Too Small To Move Supply

Realtor.com finds the median city risks losing only about $84,000, although the policy could carry more weight in supply-starved Northeast and Midwest markets

CRA Proposal Could Reshape Bank Lending And Affordable Housing Investment

The OCC and FDIC would put more weight on lending while easing community development requirements for hundreds of banks

Fannie Mae AI Governance Deadline Arrives Aug. 6

Seller/servicers using artificial intelligence in origination or servicing must have formal policies, oversight, and vendor controls in place