UK: Getting Tough on Spam?

Last Updated: 13 April 2005
Article by Ewan Nettleton

Article prepared for the Journal of Database Marketing & Consumer Strategy Management


Recent estimates suggest that spam now accounts for as much as 60% of all global email traffic1, a statistic all too evident to most email users. The content of such emails ranges from unwanted business advertisements to attempts at downright fraud. A recent example at the latter end of the scale purported to be from the lawyers of the late Sir Dennis Thatcher, and sought to dupe recipients into thinking they would receive just shy of a million pounds on providing identification information needed under UK inheritance law2. This is an example of so-called ‘phishing’, a technique used to lure naive respondents into providing contact or banking details which are then used to extract money from their bank accounts or to create stolen identities.

In December 2003, the UK Regulations3 implementing the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications (2002/58/EC), the centrepiece of the EU’s armoury of recent anti-spam legislation, came into effect4. The Directive has also been implemented in many of the other Member States of the EU, although the means of its incorporation into the national laws of individual countries has varied. The Unites States’ CAN-SPAM Act followed shortly afterwards, taking effect in January 2004, and other countries around the world have also introduced recent anti-spam legislation5

This means that it is now over a decade since spam emails first started arriving in our inboxes6, and the new legislative regimes in Europe and the US are now just over a year old. This article takes a look at the present state of the global problem of spam, and assesses the extent to which the new laws are succeeding. Some of the other non-statutory initiatives being taken around the world are also considered.

Problems and Proliferation of Spam

Email spamming is a global problem. It has arisen principally because email, in contrast to other more traditional means of relaying information, is (once appropriate systems are in place) virtually free to send and capable of reaching a huge target audience, across all corners of the globe. This means that the spammers’ activities can be commercially viable even though the take up rate from spam emails is relatively small7.

Although email users worldwide feel the effects of spam, the vast majority of it is thought to originate from a small number of discrete sources. Indeed, it has been suggested that 80% of the spam received by Internet users in North America and Europe is sent by a mere 200 spamming outfits comprising 500-600 professional spammers8; and recently, a single individual was arrested in the US, accused of sending a staggering 1.5 million spam emails9. The spam sources’ geographical distribution is also far from uniform – a recent study suggests that over three quarters of the world’s spam comes from a mere 5 countries, with over 40% of it originating from the US10.

This background makes the legislators’ objectives of reducing spam intrinsically difficult, because in most cases it will originate from outside their jurisdictions, and from a small number of dedicated spammers who are unlike to pay heed to any new laws. It also provides a difficult environment for respectable marketing companies which have to deal with the regulations imposed to curb spam and to differentiate themselves from the spammers and their overly intrusive practices.

UK Regulations and the European Directive

The UK Government implemented Directive 2002/58/EC (via the Regulations) with effect from the end of 2003, and although the majority of the other EU Member States have now done so, there are still some exceptions11. The Commission has started legal proceedings against some of those Member States, and it is still in the process of examining the new laws enacted to check their conformity with the Directive.

Indeed, there are differences in the ways in which the Directive has been implemented in the Member States which have adopted it, some of which at least stem from the different options for implementation available under the Directive itself. One notable example concerns whether or not ‘legal’ persons such as companies (as opposed to ‘natural’ persons such as individuals) have to ‘opt-in’ before they can be sent legitimate unsolicited direct marketing communications. Commentators have suggested that the UK’s Regulations take a soft approach. The UK, like France12 which is thought to be Europe’s leading source of spam13, has adopted an opt-out model for legal persons, meaning that they can be sent unsolicited emails without their prior consent having been obtained14. It has also been suggested that the penalties for non-compliance are too lenient in the UK, and that enforcement is ineffective15. This contrasts with other Member States such as Italy, which has implemented legislation that adopts the opt-in regime for legal persons (as well as for natural ones)16 and imposes significant fines and even jail terms for persistent spammers17

Given the difficulties identified above, it is hardly surprising that the Council of the EU has recently invited the Commission to evaluate whether the differences in national laws on privacy and electronic communications, including those which have arisen from implementing the Directive, could represent an obstacle to effective cross-boarder enforcement. Similarly, these problems may also explain why it is seeking to encourage other anti-spamming initiatives such as co-operation on enforcement and exchange of information within the EU and the investigation of other solutions aimed at combating spam18.


In the US, which as noted above is thought to be top of the league when it comes to sources of spam, the CAN-SPAM Act19 has been in force since 1 January 2004. This federal US legislation followed a number of earlier anti-spam Bills considered by the US legislature over several years20, and is specifically aimed at curbing the problem. However, the regime it introduced was completely opt-out, meaning that unsolicited emails could be sent without consent to natural persons as well as legal ones (in contrast to the Directive which provides an opt-in regime for natural persons)21. This and other aspects of the legislation have led to vocal US anti-spam activists deriding the new legislation, which some now refer to as the ‘You-Can-Spam’ Act22. Some have even suggested that the Act compounds the problems of spam, by encouraging unsuspecting recipients to click on opt-out or unsubscribe links in unwanted emails, which, for spam at the lower end of the reputability scale, could be dangerous23.

That said, there have been some successes. For example, a case has been recently settled between the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a company accused of sending millions of illegal e-mail messages to market bogus diet patches. The FTC claimed that the company had breached a number of federal US laws including the CAN-SPAM Act. According to the FTC, the settlement bars the defendants from violating CAN-SPAM, from making false or misleading claims about their products or services, and from making unsubstantiated health, efficacy or safety claims24. There have also been a number of other high profile US anti-spam cases25.

Other Initiatives

In addition to the legislative changes, several other anti-spam initiatives are being taken around the world. On the technical side, methods of filtering emails are becoming more sophisticated, and individual companies are, through use of appropriate IT systems and internal procedures, taking steps which seek to minimise the volumes of spam that get through. Techniques include:

Blacklisting – This involves rejecting emails from particular blacklisted sources; e.g. through subscribing to a particular lists of spam sources set up for that purpose. It does of course require confidence in the compilers/maintainers of the lists, and there is always the danger that a legitimate email may be prevented from getting through.

Whitelists and Approved Channels – These work in the opposite way by only permitting emails that are from know sources or sent via approved channels. They rely on businesses maintaining the approved lists and on their contacts having been informed of and using the correct channels. For many businesses they may be unduly restrictive.

Email address concealment – Many companies are seeking to minimise the exposure of their email addresses and those of their employees; e.g. by swapping or inserting words such as "remove-this" within email addresses posted on their websites to ensure they are not read correctly by parsing software, or by not posting email addresses on their websites at all.

Filtering – Filtering systems are becoming more sophisticated, by for example singling out near identical messages sent to many recipients, as well as by simply picking out emails containing particular keywords unlikely to appear in legitimate communications.

The costs to business of some these systems and practices can be prohibitive however, and because they are seeking to treat the problem rather than prevent it, technical methods are unlikely to ever provide a complete solution.

Other new initiatives are being taken however which do seek to stop spam at its source, and many of these involve international cooperation. Within the EU, 13 countries have reached an agreement to share information and pursue complaints across their borders in a pan-EU drive to combat spam, and the remaining EU Member States are being encouraged to follow suit26. Since most of world’s spam originates from outside the EU, it is to be welcomed that the EU has also united with Asia in its recent anti-spam drive. A joint statement of international cooperation on spam followed the Asia-Europe conference on e-Commerce held in London on 21/22 February 2005 which involved China and South Korea, two countries in the world’s five spam sources which account for around 22% of the world’s spam combined27. The US too has been taking international non-legislative initiatives, with the FTC announcing an Action Plan on Spam Enforcement in which it joined forces with 19 enforcement agencies from 15 countries around the world in October last year28.


Email spamming is still a growing, global problem that faces both email users and legitimate marketing businesses. The new laws operating in the EU and US are unlikely, as they stand, to rein in the small band of dedicated spammers who generate the majority of unwanted email traffic. Likewise, the ever more sophisticated technical solutions to spam, whilst they may ease the effects of the problem, they will probably never provide a complete solution. However, it is hoped that these measures, combined with the trend of growing international cooperation between countries that include the world’s principal sources of spam, will finally start to tackle the problem, and that the steps taken will start to have more of an effect on the spammers than on legitimate marketing companies.


1. See for example Commission press release dated 24 February 2005 entitled "EU and Asia unite against ‘spam’".

2. See the Sophos article dated 16 March 2005 entitled "New email scam promises money from the late Sir Dennis Thatcher’s will, reports Sophos".

3. The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.

4. Further details of the provisions of the UK Regulations relating to email marketing are given in "Electronic marketing and the new anti-spam regulations", by Ewan Nettleton, The Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, Volume 11, Number 3, April 2004. The Regulations also have implications for other forms of marketing; e.g. telephone marketing (see "Telephone Marketing out in the Cold?", by Ewan Nettleton and Charlotte Pham, The Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, Volume 12, Number 2, January 2005).

5. E.g. Australia.

6. These were reportedly sent by two lawyers in Arizona in 1994 (see "Pest Control" by Daniel Eilon and James Watt, Legal Week (Global Edition), 29 July 2004).

7. E.g. a spam emailer reportedly testified at the FTC Spam Forum that he could make a profit even if his response rate was less than 0.0001% (see the remarks of Timothy Muris at the Aspen Summit of 19 August 2003).

8. Source: Spamhaus.

9. See the Sophos article dated 18 February 2005 entitled "New York man arrested in spam case, Sophos reports".

10. See the Sophos article dated 24 December 2004 entitled "The ‘Dirty Dozen’ 2004: Sophos reveals the top spamming countries".

11. The EU Commission’s communication to the Council entitled "European Electronic Communciations Regulation and Markets 2004" (10th Report) dated 2 December 2004 suggested that at the end of October 2004, although 20 Member States had adopted the primary legislation required to implement the Directive, five Member States (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece and Luxembourg) had not. Substantive secondary legislation was also said to be outstanding.

12. And also like Portugal, Austria, Iceland, Sweden and Finland (see the Commission’s communication, ibid).

13. Closely followed by Spain, the UK and Germany (see the Sophos article dated 24 December 2004 entitled "The ‘Dirty Dozen’ 2004: Sophos reveals the top spamming countries").

14. Subject to other general requirements for compliance being fulfilled, as to which see "Electronic marketing and the new anti-spam regulations", by Ewan Nettleton, The Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, Volume 11, Number 3, April 2004.

15. E.g. "Spam: where’s the beef?", by Hazel Raw, Computers & Law, Volume 15, Number 1, April/May 2004.

16. Spain, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia have also adopted the opt-in regime (see the Commission’s communication, ref. 11 above).

17. Implementation in Italy was via the Personal Data Protection Code (legislative decree no. 196 dated 30 June 2003) which supplemented earlier Italian legislation which already covered many of the principles of the Directive.

18. Based on statements made by the Council in the "Fight against ‘spam’ – Council conclusions" section of the Council’s press release of 9-10 December 2004 (provisional version) following the 2629th Council meeting.

19. The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003.

20. E.g. six such Bills were introduced during the 106th Congress (1999-2000, including the first version of CAN-SPAM).

21. Though it should be noted that some US states (most notably California) have stricter state laws governing spam.

22. See "Opening up the CAN-SPAM Act", by Jeffrey Sullivan and Michael Leeuw, Computers & Law, Volume 14, Number 6, February/March 2004.

23. E.g. such links could be used by fraudsters as a well-disguised way of "phishing",

24. This is also reportedly backed up by a suspended judgment for the total amount of the company’s diet patch sales (US$230,000). See FTC press release dated 31 March 2005 entitled "Diet Patch Sellers Settle Can-Spam Charges".

25. Details are provided on the FTC website:

26. See the Commission press release dated 7 February 2005 entitled "European countries launch joint drive to combat ‘spam’".

27. See the Sophos article dated 24 December 2004 entitled "The ‘Dirty Dozen’ 2004: Sophos reveals the top spamming countries".

28. See FTC press release dated 12 October 2004 entitled "FTC, International Agencies Adopt Action Plan on Spam Enforcement".

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.