Double Jeopardy Over State Do-Not-Mail Bills

By George S. Isaacson

Competing Do-Not-Mail Arguments

Legislators and activists, advocating or opposing do-not-mail offers, have elaborate reasons for feeling one way or another about direct mail. Below are some of their arguments:

Advocates of Do-Not-Mail

Direct mail is bad for the environment because it wastes natural resources and exhausts scarce solid waste disposal sites;
it intrudes on recipients’ privacy by foisting on them unwelcome materials and accessing data sources that invade privacy;
it places a burden on recipients for disposing of unwanted promotional materials; and
it imposes on consumers’ time and patience, because many marketing messages are repetitive and poorly targeted.

Opponents

Direct mail improves the flow of information about goods and services available to consumers;
it’s consistent with America’s commitment to “free speech,” including vibrant commercial speech;
it stimulates the economy by (1) creating jobs in the direct marketing industry and (2) supporting the vital consumer sector of the economy; and
it’s key to maintaining the U.S. Postal Service and thereby avoiding a reduction of mail services for all residents and businesses. (Roughly one-third of USPS revenue is derived from delivering advertising materials.) —GSI

Last year, 12 states had do-not-mail legislation under consideration. But none of the bills were enacted from those states, which included Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and Washington. In most instances, they died at the end of sessions when the legislatures adjourned.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 All Next »

0 Comments

View Comments

George S. Isaacson Author's page

Legal Matters: Double Jeopardy Over State Do-Not-Mail Bills