Order Code RL31953
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
“Junk E-Mail”: An Overview of Issues
and Legislation Concerning Unsolicited
Commercial Electronic Mail (“Spam”)
Updated June 18, 2003
Marcia S. Smith
Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

“Junk E-Mail”: An Overview of Issues and Legislation
Concerning Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail
(“Spam”)
Summary
Unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE), also called “spam” or “junk e-mail,”
aggravates many computer users. Not only can spam be a nuisance, but its cost may
be passed on to consumers through higher charges from Internet service providers
who must upgrade their systems to handle the traffic. Proponents of UCE insist it is
a legitimate marketing technique and protected by the First Amendment. While 33
states have anti-spam laws, there is no federal law. Six bills addressing the spam
issue are pending in the 108th Congress: H.R. 1933 (Lofgren), H.R. 2214 (Burr-
Tauzin-Sensenbrenner), S. 563 (Dayton), S. 877 (Burns-Wyden), S. 1052 (Nelson-
FL), and S. 1231 (Schumer).
Spam on wireless devices such as cell phones is discussed in CRS Report
RL31636, Wireless Privacy: Availability of Location Information for Telemarketing.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Avoiding and Restraining Spam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
State Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Congressional Action: 105th-107th Congresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Congressional Action: 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
List of Tables
Table 1: Brief Comparison of Pending Spam Legislation in the House . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2: Brief Comparison of Pending Spam Legislation in the Senate . . . . . . . . 7

---

“Junk E-Mail”: An Overview of Issues and
Legislation Concerning Unsolicited
Commercial Electronic Mail (“Spam”)
Overview
One aspect of increased use of the Internet for electronic mail (e-mail) has been
the advent of unsolicited advertising, also called “unsolicited commercial e-mail
(UCE),” “unsolicited bulk e-mail,” “junk e-mail, “or “spam.”1 Consumer complaints
focus on the fact that some spam contains or has links to pornography, and about the
steadily
increasing
volume
of
spam.
According
to
Brightmail
[http://www.brightmail.com], a company that sells anti-spam software, the volume
of spam rose from 8% of all e-mail in January 2001 to 45% in January 2003. Some
project that spam will reach or exceed 50% of all e-mail by 2004.
Opponents of junk e-mail argue that not only is it annoying and an invasion of
privacy (see CRS Report RL31408 for more on Internet privacy), but that its cost is
borne by consumers and Internet Service Providers (ISPs), not the marketers.
Consumers reportedly are charged higher fees by ISPs that must invest resources to
upgrade equipment to manage the high volume of e-mail, deal with customer
complaints, and mount legal challenges to junk e-mailers. Businesses may incur
costs due to lost productivity, or investing in upgraded equipment or anti-spam
software.
The Ferris Research Group [http://www.ferris.com], which offers
consulting services on managing spam, estimates that spam will cost U.S.
organizations over $10 billion in 2003.
Proponents of UCE argue that it is a valid method of advertising, and is
protected by the First Amendment.
The Direct Marketing Association (DMA)
argued for several years that instead of banning UCE, individuals should be given
the opportunity to “opt-out” by notifying the sender that they want to be removed
from the mailing list. Hoping to demonstrate that self regulation could work, in
January 2000, the DMA launched the E-mail Preference Service where consumers
who wish to opt-out can register themselves at a DMA Web site [http://www.e-
mps.org].
DMA members sending UCE must check their lists of recipients and
delete those who have opted out. Critics argued that most spam does not come from
DMA members, so the plan is insufficient, and on October 20, 2002, the DMA
1 The origin of the term spam for unsolicited commercial e-mail was recounted in
Computerworld, April 5, 1999, p. 70: “It all started in early Internet chat rooms and
interactive fantasy games where someone repeating the same sentence or comment was said
to be making a ‘spam.’ The term referred to a Monty Python’s Flying Circus scene in which
actors keep saying ‘Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam’ when reading options from a menu.”

---

CRS-2
agreed. Concerned that the volume of unwanted spam was undermining the use of
e-mail as a marketing tool, the DMA announced that it now would pursue legislation
to battle the rising volume of spam.
One challenge of controlling spam is that much of it originates outside the
United States and thus is not subject to U.S. laws or regulations. Spam is a global
problem, and the European Commission estimates that Internet subscribers globally
pay 10 billion Euros a year in connection costs to download spam
[http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/studies/spam_en.htm]. Several
European countries have anti-spam laws.
The FTC and other U.S. and foreign
agencies have called on organizations in 59 countries to close “open relays” that
allow spam to be routed through third-party computers, permitting spammers to
avoid detection [http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/05/swnetforce.htm].
Avoiding and Restraining Spam
Tips on avoiding spam are available on the Federal Trade Commission’s
(FTC’s)
Web
site
[http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menu-internet.htm],
and
from
[http://home.cnet.com/internet/0-3793-8-5181225-1.html], a non-government site.
Consumers may file a complaint about spam with the FTC by visiting the FTC Web
site [http://www.ftc.gov] and scrolling down to “complaint form” at the bottom of
the page. The offending spam also may be forwarded to the FTC (UCE@ftc.gov) to
assist the FTC in monitoring UCE trends and developments.
To date, the objective of restraining junk e-mail has been fought primarily over
the Internet or in the courts. Some Internet service providers (ISPs) will return junk
e-mail to its origin, and groups opposed to junk e-mail will send blasts of e-mail to
a mass e-mail company, disrupting the company’s computer systems. America
OnLine, Earthlink, and Microsoft Network all have brought lawsuits under existing
laws to stop spammers.
Another approach is to enact specific anti-spam legislation. As discussed
below, more than half the states already have enacted spam laws, though no federal
legislation has passed. An oft-discussed approach is requiring senders of UCE to
provide a legitimate opportunity for recipients to “opt-out” of receiving additional
messages. Others want to prevent bulk e-mailers from sending messages to anyone
with whom they do not have an established business relationship, treating junk e-mail
the same way as junk fax (see CRS Report RL30763 for information on the law
pertaining to junk fax). Another approach is creating a “do not e-mail” list similar
to the “do not call” list for telemarketers, under which individuals can place their
names on a list to opt-out of receiving UCE. Another possibility is requiring that
senders of UCE use a label such as “ADV” in the subject line of the message so the
recipient will know before opening an e-mail message that it is an advertisement.
Others argue that legislation cannot stop spam because so much of spam
originates overseas, or because legislation includes so many “loopholes” that it is
ineffective. The fact that spam is rising despite the growing number of state laws
suggests that legislation is not a sure solution. One proposed alternative is trying to
make spam less attractive economically by increasing the cost of sending spam,
perhaps by establishing systems whereby recipients could charge spammers

---

CRS-3
“postage” for UCE. Others believe the issue should be left to the ISPs to resolve
since they have the incentive to do so.
State Action
According to the SpamLaws Web site [http://www.spamlaws.com], 33 states
have passed laws regulating spam: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The specifics
of each law varies. Summaries of and links to each law are provided on that Web
site.
Congressional Action: 105th-107th Congresses
In the 105th Congress, the House and Senate each passed legislation (H.R. 3888,
and S. 1618), but no bill ultimately cleared Congress. In the 106th Congress, several
UCE bills were introduced. One, H.R. 3113 Wilson), passed the House. There was
no further action. Several spam bills were introduced in the 107th Congress, but none
passed.
One, H.R. 718 (Wilson), was reported from the House Energy and
Commerce Committee (H.Rept. 107-41, Part I), and the House Judiciary Committee
(H.Rept. 107-41, Part II). The two versions were substantially different. A Senate
bill, S. 630 (Burns), was reported (S.Rept. 107-318) from the Senate Commerce
Committee. There was no further action.
Congressional Action: 108th Congress
Six bills are currently pending. Four (H.R. 1933, H.R. 2214, S. 877, and S.
1052) are “opt-out” bills, a fifth (S. 563) is a “do not call” bill, and the sixth (S.
1231) combines elements of both. The provisions of these bills are summarized in
the following two tables—one for House bills and one for Senate bills. Some of the
provisions affect all commercial e-mail, while others affect only unsolicited
commercial e-mail (spam).

---

a
at
y
of
th
as
an
r
to
h
o
t.
sidered
s
in
.
ied
s
us
t
e)
ct
ted
the
as
u
o
u
sen
f
tif
is
w
con
o
n
lin
d
n
sen
receipt
o
o
r
n
at
is
icuo
h
ro
co
ail
t
revi
addres
t.
g
al
to
p
r
th
e
u
sp
u
con
t
as
p
n
o
ject
e-m
s
e
th
o
b
er)
rio
w
t
co
(th
su
n
erci
p
sen
th
t
sly
transfe
at
d
t
e
ct
m
ercial
u
th
to
recipien
as
en
th
ren
con
opted-
an
A
m
o
t
ercial
addres
s
b
pres
e
com
m
ith
es
n
m
w
ail
th
tent
o
as
as
w
ex
d
recipien
n
h
sen
am
is
p
co
clear
tisem
ch
e
f
as
sua
k
clu
e
ex
com
e
er
en
S
h
ur
e-m
ser,
e
ser
su
f
o
t
in
p
th
If
u
er
u
ail.
id
v
-S
o
n
itted
m
d
it
if
an
s
v
ad
n
rpos
tio
ail,
sm
s
r.
sa
ew
ro
zin
pu
o
s.
d
arty
at
t
iou
sen
n
e-m
p
an
u
tio
an
p
the
e
e
e-m
a
u
m
tran
ccu
o
th
st
is
ib
ary
ro
recipien
e,
rd
prev
to
th
u
it
e
m
p
addres
s
ail
e
ld
r
a
o
ercial
m
th
House
rr-T
istr
ri
r
th
thi
at
f
o
ception
sag
ail
ted
les
m
o
D
p
s
a
recipien
n
ge
th
e
t
ex
e-m
es
cou
a
n
u
ed
m
(Bu
n
n
in
en
m
ean
m
o
e-m
from
co
art
the
os
nse
p
n
h
ith
to
essa
m
e
fr
s
sfer
ser
sig
w
w
th
t’
ed
co
u
m
ercial
t
n
all
lar
in
2214
e
ge
s
ut
icatio
.
ctio
tran
reas
u
ail
m
ered
ve
in
ertisem
ice,
sen
sig
b
tif
,
.R
m
v
m
n
o
essa
ch
ha
es,
o
o
en
articu
H
Red
E-
ad
serv
Co
C
receiv
m
recipien
su
deliv
reas
to
addres
been
Y
No
No
N
Yes
Yes
N
id
p
t
,
lt-
p
sen
een
se
u
ercial
b
t
at
ly
m
as
ad
p
Legislation
e
con
erci
r
m
nshi
h
t
m
al
th
s
ided
ex
fo
orce.
co
t
tha
co
F
f
on
res
ere
o
:”
o
om
recipien
d
k
h
p
relatio
th
prov
n
T
ay
n
d
ke
L
as
pers
w
ex
at
id
D
m
T
Spam
an
as
tio
a
ess
e
th
d
A
n
g
o
ith
n
th
s
w
t
d
revo
4
m
as
w
der
h
t
t
usi
ith
an
o
ro
b
ean
n
DV-
icatio
eerin
p
er
w
m
sen
ity
s
r
d
g
r
e
“A
tif
in
in
o
n
g
CRS-
o
ip
u
ha
t;
en
t
,
th
sen
st
recipien
t.
En
recipien
of
sh
e
en
id
Pending
en
e
xi
and
r
et
th
th
ien
a
een
s
est
d
opport
n
O
of
to
re-e
t
-i
tisem
t
p
etw
tern
b
an
u
ts.
)
les
relation
ertisem
er
n
recip
a
requ
In
sen
s
-o
ted
v
ct
v
u
e
p
en
ve
e
es
ears
o
ad
by
A
ad
th
ail
th
y
opt
t
r
ice,
ha
at
t.
sin
5
set
ofgren
t
saction
fo
am
an
ith
an
ien
e-m
o
t
u
t
b
ertisem
(L
p
w
n
as
S
is
serv
g
tran
p
ith
.
E.
v
at
ip
es
sen
s
e
w
recip
CE.
DV:”
ad
dards
th
or
sh
o
d
ot
tin
recipien
es
th
e
e
U
UC
1933
ct
n
ercial
n
is
m
e
th
ission
in
in
“A
ted
stan
Comparison
.
ail
er
is
ex
sin
in
tim
m
th
u
r
,
-m
o
nd
d
,
o
re-
b
ith
at
es,
o
rien
ith
H.R
REDUCE
E
produ
relatio
C
se
an
of
P
a
w
th
it,
perm
Y
Yes
No
N
No
No
Yes,
o
w
rief
B
:
n
t
1
n
f
en
ail
atio
o
o
”
e
em
-m
rm
E
fo
e
C
lin
ertis
Table
in
s
tity
labels
er
g
FT
en
g
ject
adv
ercial
at
b
id
ail
in
an
m
ead
deceptiv
e
su
h
’s
is
-M
m
eadin
arn
h
or
er
in
e
E
o
g
istry
C
in
,
d
g
essag
“w
ject
m
reg
sen
ial
b
g
essag
ercial
islead
su
of
ail”
in
ater
aracters
m
m
licited
cribed
m
e
m
y
m
ch
e
m
so
isleadin
th
o
n
r
e-
o
m
body
ic
C
U
e,
ot
-pres
ted
f
f
in
n
falsif
C
o
o
r
ecif
n
o
icate
rien
d
n
n
false
deceptiv
fals
io
fo
FT
sp
“d
o
in
sion
itio
itio
)
its
at
ires
ires
to
in
in
E
ib
ibits
ibits
h
rm
alties
ally
u
E
itle
ro
roh
roh
fo
reates
en
equ
equ
Provi
T
Def
Def
(UC
P
P
P
in
C
P
R
sex
R
UC

---

if
ail
,
g
m
e
tity
in
es
e-
th
en
ur
cas
rn
ich
id
d
as
h
h
a
all
’s
s
retu
w
at
er
ge
in
g
to
th
d
in
ied
er)
essa
n
m
es
sen
already
n
is
e
m
h
otif
ctio
an
arg
th
eral
n
ren
n
e
b
ch
fu
ech
suc
b
st
ies
0
eral.
Gen
st
sen
m
0
ain
1
u
ey
en
tain
m
n
ed
ag
falsif
n
Gen
-S
as
e
C
co
b
se
tha
ey
ttorn
zin
st
et-
ct.
FT
er
A
u
u
A
.
en
essag
.
a
m
t.
f
ly
ef
w
ttorn
or
tern
u
o
o
d
m
fe
A
C
ail
In
on
e
T
e.
rr-T
ail
nt
od.
action
er
opt-
Ps
se
F
en
e-m
IS
ativ
eri
U.S.
if
an
(Bu
th
e-m
o
ay
section
p
d
t
terv
r
m
firm
ant
o
o
d
t
for
an
n
ced
in
per
t
af
day
t
2214
ercial
s
ercial
C
u
en
ay
.
m
bu
an
m
efen
b
d
30-
FT
,
m
m
.R
m
o
es,
is
m
e
y
y
es
d
o
H
Co
addres
recipien
Varies
N
Y
It
co
th
an
B
Y
com
an
N
a
ate
er
er
s
p
in
ch
ail
riv
d
in
p
0
n
rred
day
1
d
an
is
su
$
recov
an
2-
f
th
e-m
er
an
ccu
o
d
d
at
to
actio
o
in
n
rn
n
an
th
u
p
il
ed
n
less
u
s
ith
n
w
to
retu
at
civ
lish
issio
th
g
practices
latio
t
o
if,
issio
sm
it,
5
t.
u
alties
.
rin
estab
vi
or
to
o
iolation
sm
an
cep
en
ty
b
v
able
,
tr
p
al
y
ay
as
and
an
e
ilar
operated
ex
er
h
on
pl
tr
CRS-
opt-
se
en
m
n
e
th
er-
C,
o
p
P
rth
ns,
sim
d
ay
p
e
fu
reas
com
th
m
FT
tio
f
im
th
IS
erso
o
sen
t
y
r
p
to
b
o
n
itiated
ay
of
join
e
care,
iola
s
tially
v
rt
in
)
th
e
alid
set
m
CE
en
t
fo
n
v
stan
e
rt
ses.
U
if
du
en
ef
itiatio
b
recipien
b
u
20%
to
f
rt
le
in
erso
su
to
co
an
o
ith
e
p
ofgren
tain
e
ich
,
t
w
prev
n
h
n
th
cou
liab
faith
th
addres
(L
t
ch
o
con
w
s
ien
o
to
n
ted,
o
su
r
ail
st
alties
les
n
ood
,
o
u
to
actio
trict
res
p
m
en
n.
t
ecip
is
en
g
u
n
e,
1933
m
s
p
f
o
R
es.
n
g
e-
C
.
o
n
dis
ite
T
E
il
t
latio
ag
p
in
latio
F
C
iv
h
o
es,
es.
plem
erso
d
io
essag
y
A
A
H.R
U
addres
C
rig
vi
Y
Y
U.S.
dam
P
im
procedu
des
en
v
m
1,000
B
N
N
d
f
o
an
n
r
lato
io
llectio
v
co
a
e
g
th
in
y
to
tif
g
m
in
is
en
id
an
ed
n
lead
n
n
w
ech
m
erso
ctio
se
atio
ed
allo
t
alties
p
A
en
u
f
its
o
en
st
rm
o
ef
P
fo
t
D
allow
su
r
fir
h
t
n
opt-
o
r
in
alty
e
en
fo
g
ig
es
en
R
sion
in
p
ativ
ires
actio
ag
action
ard
ly
il
rcem
p
ate
equ
p
civ
fo
riv
ffirm
Provi
R
Dam
Rew
su
a
P
A
En
State
Class

---

er
oth
,
er
d
n
relay
rt.
u
u
s
te,
u
co
es
ln
ro
er)
n
ict
fu
it,
istr
sm
ren
d
law
ail.
b
n
u
.S.
r
tran
e-m
sen
U
o
to
f
s
o
en
in
g
es
ail.
-S
n
in
es
ln
p
e-m
zin
fu
ty
u
eclin
a
actio
d
il
law
tain
s.
e
n
ercial
rr-T
civ
th
cer
tio
m
g
licies
o
re
m
cep
(Bu
rin
p
co
b
affect
P
sto
ex
t
r
all
ay
o
IS
o
ith
r
2214
n
f
.
m
o
le,
w
fo
s
s
d
.R
P
an
H
IS
Does
law
h
Yes,
Yes,
es
p
to
ISP
e
ty
a
g
er
ilities
r
er
tain
ire
g
in
d
o
in
th
clos
tain
ren
o
liab
cer
t
y
il
t
rt.
dis
requ
cer
eclin
o
p
state,
u
d
ot
n
re
adopt
g
an
civ
co
ay
n
m
in
es
er
se
reem
sto
d
o
o
p
ict
r
d
p
t
o
from
und
o
federal,
6
does
P
clu
d
istr
ISP
;
im
n
d
le
in
an
ful
t
er
en
d
IS
o
es
h
it
ail
n
o
.S.
an
ail;
aw
d
oth
CRS-
w
h
U
g
ay
records
,
lim
e-m
unl
ct
in
r
m
o
e-m
is
A
n
or
t
t
ts
e
ardin
s
relay
h
certain
en
en
T
te,
ercial
ercial
tha
m
er
)
actio
reg
u
m
d
m
n
il
ro
prev
m
m
licy
ern
ct.
u
law
ication
n
o
v
A
civ
ot
co
e
u
it,
n
.
o
g
co
p
g
ofgren
g
g
m
sm
h
in
ith
law
w
(L
rin
an
d
tain
f
cal
t
ailable
b
an
suc
ch
com
tr
does
ar
o
lo
av
t
cer
y
s.
ay
,
n
o
er
reg
an
d
1933
n
ck
ail;
it
an
sisten
.
m
law
s
lo
m
sm
ful
isio
n
edies
P
stom
b
e-
licy
o
an
co
cal
H.R
IS
Does
cu
to
of
p
tr
law
prov
State
in
rem
lo
No
y
s
n
latio
properl
u
im
reg
d
an
from
resses
s
d
ail
ad
law
m
e-
ail
cal
of
lo
e-m
d
an
ission
ested
sed
s
sm
P
state
arv
h
IS
ddres
es
tran
A
n
ally
sion
o
its
ot
ersed
ib
N
fect
p
illeg
=
r
Provi
Ef
Su
Proh
o
A
N

---

to
n
t
an
d
e
id
is
.
t
lied
f
t
d
o
an
tly
s
e
rcial
u
p
tatio
tim
d
o
e
saction
im
e
e
p
tly
en
ean
an
r
th
e
at
ted;
th
ail.
ail.
rpos
a
mme
ith
o
s
invi
th
en
w
m
tran
d
th
r
t
recipien
ception
sco
sequ
t
s
recipien
ity
pu
co
tw
e
us
y
ran
at
n
e-m
e-m
fo
ex
e
b
an
a
ean
b
kne
g
es
d
u
en
sen
th
sen
m
th
sequ
t
g
su
s
ary
te,
n
an
t
iguo
b
n
t
sin
an
o
se,
ter
in
b
ted
ien
o
con
u
ear
ided
er)
m
o
ails
co
su
ei
n
y
ercial
ercial
ri
m
af
ith
sen
ith
m
t
b
b
der
opport
m
ran
p
rp
ice.
e
t
w
g
o
id
a
3
t
m
m
u
-m
w
lied
prov
e
ro
u
n
p
p
recip
as
d
u
m
ativ
t,
con
una
d
t
p
sen
ast
it.
ch
sen
u
w
t
os
r
serv
e
e
as
-o
co
com
o
o
e
Im
been
p
(S
h
or
falls
an
th
th
e
w
Ac
w
rcial
or
e
and
ission
t
;
t
opt
all
all
ct
erciale
t,
ativ
d
as
th
affirm
t.
h
ercise
ail
m
u
r
ission
in
in
opted-
ke
een
in
an
ex
,
1231
AM
ertise
m
sen
ress
perm
recipien
-o
t
.
P
m
v
mme
o
rio
as
ffirm
essag
p
e
ere
ith
ith
o
S
S
E-
ad
co
produ
C
p
con
h
A
m
ex
or
recipien
revo
perm
th
opt
th
betw
w
recipien
w
n
Yes,
Yes
Senate
.
ct
e
solicited
A
the
)
n
rg
ation
U
ail
fo
rm
in
r
-FL
e
M
o
fo
n
ic
y
in
so
el
eceptiv
falsif
(N
D
eader
h
n
to
o
Electron
e
e
al
1052
lk
n
n
.
an
u
o
o
S
B
B
N
N
Illeg
certain
No
Legislation
t
e
e.
or
e
d
h
to
sen
d
tim
id
ct
an
d
Spam
is
tt
an
at
u
a
s
t
essag
ted
con
d
se
o
r
o
m
e
es
th
7
o
r
o
an
o
rodu
ears
e
n
th
sen
der
y
at
ail.
ail.
rp
t
p
ith
ip
s
lied
sin
u
is
p
u
sen
3
ity
)
p
en
al
s.
tw
ativ
at
sh
n
b
n
ean
con
t
e-m
e-m
Im
a
e
ided
u
CRS-
en
y
em
en
th
m
th
as
ar
erci
sly
p
firm
d
t
e.
e
Pending
yd
m
ails
af
een
an
b
een
prov
th
ercial
ercial
ct
rim
ertis
ception
relatio
sen
pres
sag
opport
p
t
r
as
t
m
m
of
s-W
A
com
-m
as
in
adv
es
f
ex
rior
o
con
ex
h
etw
w
u
it.
m
m
rn
se
sen
b
t
M
m
o
o
ith
p
n
al
e
as
ith
-o
co
co
A
h
n
s
n
e
w
h
w
co
ere
(Bu
P
w
io
t’
t
th
t
opt
all
all
S
ercial
erciale
ativ
e
th
ercise
ail
m
ot
s
ice,
m
an
in
in
lied
sactio
saction
ex
,
877
N
m
p
recipien
t
.
A
-m
o
an
ffirm
ean
e
ith
o
S
C
E
com
prom
serv
C
recipien
im
tr
A
recipien
receiv
m
tran
recipien
th
w
n
Yes,
Yes
Comparison
)
ers
ct
n
A
ts
rief
ayton
Ow
h
B
:
(D
ter
u
Rig
2
p
f
o
e
e
563
m
n
n
.
ill
o
o
S
Co
B
N
N
No
No
Table
s
er
g
ail
ead
h
-M
eadin
h
E
g
)
E
in
C
ject
b
ercial
U
islead
su
m
licited
m
e
m
so
ail(
o
n
r
o
C
U
-m
f
f
o
o
n
n
n
false
deceptiv
sion
itio
itio
ercialE
its
atio
in
in
m
ib
ibits
m
h
rm
itle
o
ro
fo
roh
Provi
T
Def
Def
C
P
in
P

---

e-
s
to
e,
se
if
ith
ail
o
les
y
w
list,
m
ries
lin
ail
t
e
th
g
e-
lt
t.
o
lied
-
for
abl
ly
ories
p
th
in
ith
e-m
ided
d
t
the
C
ed
on
p
g
r
ject
adu
ten
im
if
T
w
categ
r
b
F
clu
ng
as
rov
lis
es
fo
o
or.
su
b
recipien
p
com
categ
es
con
h
in
ni
or
reas
ardin
tak
ns
in
lies
e
ic
al
in
ided
an
p
et-
tio
on
to
f
d
m
ory
th
reg
ch
ertis
suc
e
r
e
rov
o
m
ail,
an
b
res
atio
.
su
actu
p
lat
tern
er)
been
th
u
co
ich
arbor”
pers
func
y
u
specif
e.g
adv
to
no
st
ber
e-m
In
h
m
h
as
,
s
to
by
u
d
reg
w
u
e
h
or
ho
ve
er
istr
eas
regul
rs
or
k
m
em
an
.
s
ll
ha
th
to
ch
s
s
m
o
lin
ard
en
arbor”
m
n
ts
o
t.
reg
in
iv
h
a
self
ercial
u
(S
“saf
create
r
en
st
r
m
t
day
n
issue
m
tain
o
sha
reg
g
DV”
m
u
o
is
-o
u
o
able
t
t
t
is
ed
s
b
m
m
addres
ct.
to
ay
“A
izatio
an
,
30
on
m
con
ers
ou
,
“safe
er
irem
co
opt
1231
A
C
ten
nd
sen
t
d
an
E
.
es
ail
an
e
d
at
ith
rg
ll
C
ech
ay
S
Yes
Y
m
th
relied
reas
th
FT
an
protect
th
con
Se
w
con
No
No
Yes,
bu
sen
approv
o
requ
A
U
addres
m
m
st
d
to
u
an
ity
)
m
n
u
CE
clear
-FL
t
t.
n
U
u
so
opport
-o
el
ing
s
nd
opt
(N
ou
se
recipien
to
n
cu
t
ide
es
1052
spi
.
o
erso
S
No
N
No
No
No
P
prov
con
requ
s
n
ail.
it
ed
ar
ail
at
as
t
actio
th
e-m
b
t
e
e-m
cle
e
n
et-
8
’s
ng
C
en
id
ni
T
v
ercial
tern
recipien
)
F
ro
icatio
rcem
eceptiv
d
m
p
tio
In
e
CRS-
en
fo
r
m
tif
st
er
th
fect
o
u
en
func
yd
co
t.
th
af
en
e
o
ich
g
m
id
in
en
r
h
ot
s
tain
o
s-W
n
rin
fals
s
ge
u
n
w
b
n
o
em
s
rn
co
to
t.
to
essa
icu
u
tatio
ertis
m
(Bu
does
m
-o
t
sp
ust
is
u
rity
ut
n
m
addres
b
aterially
o
b
co
adv
an
rn
opt
877
,
m
resen
,
E
.
o
th
r
o
d
an
C
ech
ay
S
N
au
fo
rep
N
No
No
No
an
is
U
retu
m
m
h
g
)
t
u
rou
o
th
l
ayton
ai
m
(D
opt-
is
e-m
.
an
t
o
563
n
istry
.
o
reates
ech
S
N
Yes
No
No
No
C
m
do
reg
g
ial
at
e
in
of
th
ater
r
’s
o
er
arn
m
in
,
istry
d
t
m
g
body
“w
icate
ted
d
en
is
in
reg
in
sen
in
an
g
em
ail”
rien
in
aracters
to
cribed
o
ech
islead
m
y
ation
ch
ertis
m
m
e-
CE
ally
ic
t
U
u
ot
-pres
u
f
adv
o
form
n
falsif
r
C
ecif
o
an
false,
in
o
fo
sex
e
e
FT
sp
opt-
“d
n
is
o
lin
e
sion
its
ge
ib
ires
ires
ires
h
tity
C
alties
els”
ject
ro
essa
reates
en
en
equ
equ
b
essag
equ
Provi
P
deceptiv
m
C
FT
P
id
R
lab
R
su
m
R

---

if
d
as
.
,
les
an
ay
ru
an
n
rs”
cies
m
r
o
o
tities
en
ich
h
s
latio
rb
en
ag
w
io
ha
,
ct.
law
an
State,
v
er
fe
tain
C
A
fected
y
e
in
T
f
af
b
,
th
er
cer
oth
F
o
g
f
“sa
y
o
rth
s
r
by
er)
ely
n
ri
.
tif
rt
fu
fo
o
m
itted
b
es
t
n
u
ers
m
,
in
lishe
.
rt
cou
jo
ag
cep
lated
st
ne
ch
section
er
adv
p
e.
u
u
(S
t
cou
en
am
ex
m
per
d
estab
reg
ise
e
to
t
erve
er
ut
abov
C,
u
tat
n
b
are
b
int
1231
erw
S
,
ted
FT
.
ecipien
th
o
o
y
at
ay
o
S
Varies
No
R
o
of
appropriate
actio
recov
N
n
B
th
Yes,
m
N
e
b
O
to
IC
R
e
es
18
a
ct.
)
er
fin
ith
d
n
A
w
u
eceptiv
C
-FL
d
d
n
an
ce
se
r
FT
so
sidered
o
er
el
con
ffen
d
o
fair
n
(N
alties
n
n
u
en
u
p
accordan
.
io
at
an
1052
il
in
.
o
A
iol
d
A
S
Civ
set
U.S.C
No
N
N
V
predicate
an
practice
NA
N
or
on
s,
d
.
,
o
pers
o
er
g
cies
ay
e
ted
tities
en
th
o
m
9
th
en
iolation
ite
v
en
ag
r
if
practices
o
ich
$500,000,
t
esp
er
h
)
e
lem
C
tain
p
en
d
.
tain
T
w
CRS-
to
en
able
oth
F
p
ly
cer
liabl
im
p
cer
y
or,
yd
u
on
prev
rred
r
,
t
d
m
by
n
er
o
fo
tif
lat
d
n
an
to
reas
ccu
co
t
o
u
s-W
n
.
n
u
is
ed
o
res
to
lated
st
rn
latio
n
reg
ces
n
cep
u
u
io
on
v
lish
care,
rts
ex
m
ate
(Bu
e.
illio
reg
stan
e
latio
t
pers
C,
u
en
per
m
m
rocedu
io
effo
b
estab
du
p
v
are
v
877
.5
FT
.
1
o
es,
as
ith
d
d
ith
y
at
es,
ter
A
S
$10
$
circu
No
N
Y
h
w
an
an
fa
B
th
Y
appropri
in
N
)
per
ayton
(D
n
$10,000
C
T
563
to
latio
F
.
p
io
o
A
y
A
A
S
U
v
No
N
N
B
N
N
a
g
n
in
io
il
y
at
tif
civ
rm
a
en
fo
f
id
o
ed
n
in
g
w
in
erso
y
ction
se
ed
allo
alties
p
A
en
w
en
st
ppl
collection
of
ef
its
P
su
e
t
D
allo
su
r
fir
h
t
o
r
d
th
e
en
n
n
fo
an
ig
iv
es
to
R
sion
g
at
actio
ag
or
ard
actio
at
rcem
alty
ate
fo
iol
en
riv
ffirm
Provi
Dam
Rew
v
leadin
p
P
A
En
State
Class

---

.
.S
al
U
ith
ice.
o
w
s.
in
ail
istration
ailt
illeg
n
ly
ean
p
to
serv
h
io
f
g
m
e-m
m
reg
-m
t
o
u
act
co
ect
n
s
ro
il
th
ated
v
st
resp
er)
ercial
u
term
erciale
ci
m
accou
ed
tom
m
m
ith
er
m
u
g
n
m
au
CE
w
ail,
th
o
tain
r
ch
ri
com
o
b
b
rt.
o
f
U
m
r
o
(S
o
o
g
ay
cou
g
ic
licies
allc
f
tin
m
in
ers
d
o
se,
p
u
o
es
1231
s
trict
d
resses
.
P
clu
P
d
A
es,
d
arv
S
IS
dis
Sen
in
IS
electron
an
N
Y
ad
h
e
ail
d
rpos
an
pu
)
e-m
e
g
lic
b
th
-FL
u
r
CE.
n
p
fo
U
so
g
el
llectin
co
from
ittin
(N
its
ses
spaces
sm
ib
ate
an
1052
h
tr
.
A
ro
f
S
NA
N
P
addres
priv
o
f
o
ISP
te,
.S.
r
f
u
es
p
U
o
o
s
ro
ty
0
s
in
1
es
it,
ln
law
tain
r
sm
)
fu
cer
the
CRS-
en
action
tran
il
law
o
re
s.
CE.
yd
e
n
er
to
U
civ
th
g
sto
l
r
tio
fu
s-W
g
und
in
o
cep
rn
rin
b
rt.
le,
law
affect
ess
eclin
d
ex
n
t
n
d
u
(Bu
ay
cou
o
an
ith
r
m
n
ful
h
,
w
fo
ail.
877
s
trict
aw
licies
.
o
m
S
ISP
dis
Does
unl
p
relay
e-
Yes,
Yes,
ct
)
A
s
ayton
(D
ization
an
563
.
S
NA
NA
NA
Org
pt
d
orru
C
an
s
d
ail
an
law
m
e-
f
ally
ced
o
ses
en
local
n
d
illeg
flu
r
an
In
issio
o
addres
sed
s
sm
ail
state
erly
an
p
eteer
ISP
e-m
ns
tr
ro
p
addres
ack
R
sion
on
edes
its
ted
ot
atio
ib
im
N
=
h
es
fect
pers
m
=
O
ro
arv
Provi
Ef
Su
regul
P
fro
h
A
IC
N
R

---