15

I live in a small apartment building that gets an onslaught of spam mail. Endless offers and coupon newspapers, etc all addressed to "To the resident of so and so". I, as a concerned and annoyed citizen, wish that this spam mail would stop because it it a waste of resources and a nuisance for me. As a hypothetical question, can a city create a law that prevents spam mail from being sent to their residents? Perhaps a small fine for every spam letter sent? Let's ignore the question of "What defines spam mail?" for now. I am more interested in if a US city has the power to implement such a law.

To be clear, this is not asking how I can avoid spam mail — I am asking whether a municipality has the power to make a law regulating spam mail.

Improve this question
8
  • 2
    Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Law Meta, or in Law Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
    – Dale M ♦
    Commented May 6 at 4:00
  • Several answers relating to whether the mail can be physically stopped, but none address the powers that states and local governments would have, such as considering the spam to be harassment (just like phone calls, which also are communications regulated federally) and enabling local courts to issue injunctions and levy fines. (Could the spam mailers, being the "property" of the sender until delivered, be "seized" out of the mail to comply with a garnishment-type court order?)
    – Ben Voigt
    Commented May 6 at 17:23
  • 1
    @BenVoigt The analysis and outcome is the same in either case. The states have essentially no authority to stand between the federal government and its customers in deciding what may or may not be sent through the mail. They can, of course, use the letters you send every day to your ex-girlfriend as evidence of harassment, but they can't redefine harassment to include "sending communications protected by the First Amendment through the U.S. Postal Service."
    – bdb484
    Commented May 6 at 21:52
  • @bdb484: Why can they permit a court to use private letters as evidence of harassment but not letters sent by a commercial party to an address listed on a "no unsolicited commercial mailings" list? Both are protected communications under the First Amendment. Note that I'm assuming the recipient is making a complaint of harassment. If a court grants a "no-contact" order, I presume that ends any protected status of the communications.
    – Ben Voigt
    Commented May 7 at 1:11
  • 3
    @stackoverblown, I read this as being about postal junk mail, not email. Folks answering appear to generally share that interpretation.
    – Charles Duffy
    Commented May 7 at 18:45

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
30

No.

The federal government has essentially exclusive jurisdiction over the question of what may or may not be sent through USPS. Pensacola Tel. Co. v. West., Etc. Tel. Co., 96 U.S. 1, 9 (1877) (“It is not only the right, but the duty, of Congress to see to it that intercourse among the States and the transmission of intelligence are not obstructed or unnecessarily encumbered by State legislation.”).

Improve this answer
1
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Law Meta, or in Law Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
    – Dale M ♦
    Commented May 8 at 21:36
11

No

Local government powers are spelled out in the relevant acts of the relevant state or territory governments. AFAIK, none have given them the power to regulate post.

In theory, a state government could give them that power or regulate it themselves, but post and telecommunications is an enumerated power of the Commonwealth, which means that if any of their regulations conflicted with Federal law they would be invalid.

In particular, they can’t impose any regulations on Australia Post, the Commonwealth statutory corporation responsible for delivering letters, which has a large and very profitable direct marketing delivery business. They could still regulate private actors but I think they take the sensible attitude of why bother?

The Federal government could impose such regulations and has a ministry responsible for doing so. While they have imposed anti-spam restrictions on electronic marketing, they have not on post marketing because they believe that the cost falls mainly on the marketer in the first instance but mainly on the consumer in the second.

I challenge your assertion that it is a “waste of resources”. The marketers are clearly happy to invest time and money in these campaigns, so they clearly believe the benefit outweighs the cost — they may not benefit you, but they benefit enough people that the marketer has a positive return on their investment.

Also “inconvenience” is really not a basis for government regulation. It’s only when the actions of others rise to the level of actual harm that government intervention, through regulation or the courts, is warranted.

Improve this answer
6
  • What's the general consensus on answers for a different jurisdiction? Is this broadly recommended or encouraged?
    – oldtechaa
    Commented May 6 at 3:18
  • 5
    @oldtechaa both. "Even if you supply a jurisdiction tag, we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions – while it might not answer your question directly, your question will be here for others who may be from those jurisdictions." law.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
    – Dale M ♦
    Commented May 6 at 4:03
  • Excellent, good to know!
    – oldtechaa
    Commented May 6 at 4:06
  • "the marketers... clearly believe the benefit outweighs the cost". No. They are only doing an analysis of internalized-cost to benefit, and don't care at all about the costs imposed on others.
    – Ben Voigt
    Commented May 6 at 4:31
  • 4
    @BenVoigt sure. Economists call that a negative externality, and to a rational marketer, it's irrelevant.
    – Dale M ♦
    Commented May 6 at 5:21
8

No in , that's a matter of federal law

Postal services are only legislated on the federal level, the city can not make an ordinance.

For leaflets delivered by someone else than the postal service, the Sticker "Please no Ads" came up to the highest German court, the BGH. In AZ VI ZR 182/88 it was found to add leaflets to a postage box that has such a sticker is a violation of personality rights. Note that the argumentation was based on a bunch of BGB paragraphs (§ 823 Abs. 1 i. V. m. § 1004 BGB bzw. 903, 1004, 862 BGB): the Federal German Civil Code.

Due to federal law existing in the matter, there can't be a state or city law. As such, towns are barred because there is preempting higher law.

Improve this answer
1
  • Luckily there are not many US cities in Germany
    – Gantendo
    Commented May 8 at 20:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .