FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE	Sept. 13, 2002

State Prevails in First Spam Case

	Seattle - In another significant victory for Washington's anti-spam
law, a King County Superior Court judge today declared that misleading
commercial e-mail sent to millions of people violated Washington's 1998
statute.  

	The case against Jason Heckel of Salem, Ore., was the first filed by
the Attorney General's Office under the state's1998 Unsolicited Commercial
Electronic Mail Act, which prohibits e-mail that contains deceptive
subject lines, misrepresents the e-mail's point of origin or uses a third
party's domain name without permission.

	The case was to go to trial later this month, but Judge Douglas
North decided no disputed facts existed in the case, meaning a trial was
not necessary. A hearing to determine the amount of damages Heckel will be
required to pay will be held later this fall. 

	Under the statute, Heckel could be ordered to pay $500 per
violation.

	"Deceptive e-mails are more than just a nuisance, they rob consumers
and businesses of money and time," said Attorney General Christine
Gregoire. "This is a great victory for Washington consumers."

 	The state law prohibiting certain unsolicited commercial e-mail, or
"spam," was enacted in 1998, and Heckel was sued by Gregoire later that
year. In March 2000, another King County Superior  Court judge ruled the
law unconstitutional, but that decision was later overturned by the
Washington Supreme Court. Heckel then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to
review the decision, but it declined. 

	"This is one of the few tools consumers have to fight e-mail spam.
I'm pleased that courts at all levels have validated this law," Gregoire
said.

In the lawsuit, state attorneys accused Heckel, and his company, Natural
Instincts, of violating the anti-spam law by sending unsolicited
commercial e-mails to millions of Internet users. The e-mails were aimed
at selling a booklet titled, "How to Profit from the Internet." 
	
	The lawsuit alleged that Heckel used a misleading subject line that
read, "Did I get the right e-mail address?" to entice recipients to
download and read his entire message. The suit also alleged that Heckel
posted an invalid return e-mail address to which recipients were unable to
respond.