Is ZoomInfo's interpretation of CAN-SPAM accurate regarding email marketing best practices?

Marketer from Email Geeks points out the contradiction in ZoomInfo's statement, highlighting that while it might not be illegal, using purchased lists violates the terms of service of most ESPs.

Email marketer from EmailKarma highlights that CAN-SPAM compliance is the legal minimum, and exceeding those requirements with permission-based marketing leads to better deliverability and engagement.

Email marketer from SuperOffice compares GDPR to CAN-SPAM. CAN-SPAM provides a baseline set of rules to follow, but with laws like GDPR, it falls short in terms of protecting personal data.

Marketer from Email Geeks shares a verbatim statement from ZoomInfo claiming that opt-in emails aren't necessary as long as recipients have the opportunity to opt-out, citing CAN-SPAM.

Email marketer from StackExchange discusses implied consent. They explain that while implied consent (e.g. someone giving you their business card) might technically meet CAN-SPAM, it's not best practice and risks damaging your sender reputation and deliverability.

Email marketer from Reddit states that purchased email lists can be disastrous, even if technically CAN-SPAM compliant, because recipients didn't explicitly request the emails and are likely to mark them as spam.

Email marketer from Gmass says that while CAN-SPAM allows opt-out, cold email is risky if you don't have consent. Focus on relevance, personalization, and targeting to make cold email more acceptable.

Email marketer from Klenty states that ignoring recipient consent and spam complaints can damage your sender reputation. Focus on building a clean email list with the double opt-in method and improving your sender reputation by sending quality content.

Email marketer from Email Geeks clarifies that CAN-SPAM is not the only consideration; ESP contracts and mailbox provider requirements also dictate email sending policies for successful delivery.

Email marketer from Email Geeks recounts a case where a ZoomInfo rep falsely claimed their data was compliant with SocketLabs' policies, emphasizing that ZoomInfo's data practices are often non-compliant.

Email marketer from Email Geeks explains that Zoominfo is acknowledging ESP policies, and saying the reason the ESPs have these policies is to cover themselves - which isn’t true.

Email marketer from Twitter shares that while CAN-SPAM allows opt-out, relying solely on it ignores industry best practices and ESP requirements, which often demand explicit consent.

Expert from Spam Resource answers that while complying with CAN-SPAM is essential, it doesn't guarantee a good sender reputation or high deliverability. Building a positive reputation involves obtaining explicit consent, maintaining clean lists, and engaging subscribers with relevant content, going beyond the bare minimum legal requirements.

Expert from Word to the Wise explains that CAN-SPAM allows sending email to people without their permission (opt-in), which is the key difference from GDPR and generally not a best practice. Focusing on opt-in and respecting subscriber preferences improves deliverability and engagement.

Documentation from Mailchimp explains the importance of permission marketing, emphasizing that obtaining explicit consent from subscribers is crucial for building trust and maintaining a positive sender reputation, going beyond CAN-SPAM requirements.

Documentation from Sendgrid addresses the difference between CAN-SPAM compliance and best practice. They note that while CAN-SPAM sets the legal ground, mailbox providers like Google and Microsoft are constantly shifting the landscape to protect their users. Compliance will not be enough to keep you out of the spam folder.

Documentation from the Federal Trade Commission explains that the CAN-SPAM Act sets rules for commercial email, requires giving recipients an opt-out method, and prohibits deceptive subject lines. It does not require opt-in consent.