A House of Representatives subcommittee has unanimously approved a bill that aims to free consumers from the burdens of spam. The benefits could be felt worldwide.
The bill, revised from one introduced earlier, comes up for a vote next Wednesday.
But opposition to the bill is growing.
Challengers include industry organisations such as the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) and some members of Congress, who say the bill could spark numerous lawsuits and empower ISPs to set their own anti-spam standards, which could become national standards independent of government action.
"We've been working with (DMA and others) for years on this legislation. We've made a series of accommodations," Republican Heather Wilson said, noting the revised bill is the latest attempt to reach a compromise with industry.
"But the Direct Marketing Association is about representing marketers, so this is a bill they aren't necessarily going to like."
DMA could not be immediately reached for comment. But a coalition including the American Bankers Association, the National Retail Federation, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America wrote the subcommittee members that the revised bill still raised "serious concerns."
New language in the compromise bill "will spawn a host of new lawsuits against many senders of electronic mail who inadvertently violate the sweeping requirements of the legislation," the letter said.
More troubling for some is a new authority inserted into the bill that gives ISPs nearly free rein to set and enforce their own anti-spam policies.
"ISPs should have a right to say to their customers, 'We don't like junk email - and if you don't want junk email, sign right here, and we'll take care of it,'" Wilson said after the vote.
Although passage in full committee seems certain, the bill still must move through the Judiciary Committee before it reaches the House floor. But the real obstacle, if last year provides any guidance, will be the Senate.
Much of the debate surrounding last year's bill related to First Amendment concerns, namely the free-speech rights of email marketers. Those arguments, however, seem to have faded.
