By: Matthew Elvey

Matthew Elvey — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:08:50 +0000

That’s funny, guys. Folks that use term “double opt-in” seriously are generally spammers. It looks to me like the lot of you (Charles Woodruff, ad firm lawyer Gonzalo Mon, Tatango CEO Derek Johnson and OptIt man Mark Crawford) have effectively outed yourselves as spammers. Spammers also interpret use of words like “require” in, well, I’ll just say “unusual” ways:
I think what Johnson was saying is that if you want to be able to effectively fend off such lawsuits, verified opt-in is “required”. If you don’t, you’re more likely to find yourself in a he said, she said situation, and so much more likely to end up settling or losing. He’s not saying that sending marketing texts based on unverified opt-ins is illegal. I think what he said means that doing so leaves you open to being found to have actually sent texts to people that haven’t actually opted in (“opt-out texts”?), which will, indeed, land you in scalding hot water.

By: Mark Crawford

Mark Crawford — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:02:46 +0000

That is true, and a great point. Totango is often incorrect in these areas and our attorney confirmed this as well.

By: Charles Woodruff

Charles Woodruff — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:00:11 +0000

While sms spam can be problematic, the guy quoted in this story from tatangy is a tiny service provider in Washington state and he’s way off base as usual. Non-premium SMS do not require a double opt-in.

Comments on: Marketing Misfires Trigger More 'Text Spam' Lawsuits

By: Matthew Elvey

By: Mark Crawford

By: Charles Woodruff