This could open up a new can of worms. The CAN-SPAM Act makes it unlawful for persons to initiate the transmission of commercial electronic mail messages that contain materially false or misleading header information. CAN-SPAM defines ?electronic mail message? as ?a message that is sent to a unique electronic mail address.? It further defines ?electronic mail address? as a ?destination, commonly expressed as a string of characters, consisting of a unique user name or mailbox and a reference to an Internet domain, whether or not displayed, to which an electronic mail message can be sent or delivered.? On March 28, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that the CAN-SPAM Act?s (the ?Act?) restrictions on the transmission of unsolicited commercial e-mail (?UCE?) extend beyond traditional e-mail to cover communications to other electronic destinations, including Facebook users? walls, news feeds, and in-network messages. Facebook Inc. v. MaxBounty Inc. (N.D. Cal., No. 10-4712, 3/28/11). The ruling is one of the most expansive judicial interpretations, to date, of the types of messages falling within the scope of the Act. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel noted that this issue was one of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, directly addressing the issue of whether the Act applies to social networking communications that are not delivered to an ?inbox? comparable to traditional e-mail. Prior California District Court decisions have concluded that the statute reaches ?e-mail-like? messages transmitted through the MySpace social network. Those courts reached their result by looking at the Act?s legislative history, noting that the Act was designed to ensure the convenience and efficiency of electronic messaging systems, and saw no reason in the statute for its coverage to be limited to e-mail. Thus, broadening that analysis, Judge Fogel held that the Act reaches other types of social networking communications, as well. Such messages require Facebook to engage in routing operations, therefore, applying the Act to those communications is consistent with Congressional intent to mitigate misleading commercial communications that ?overburden communications infrastructure.? Facebook alleged that MaxBounty violated the law by enrolling affiliates in unfair and deceptive ad campaigns which involved the creation of fictitious Facebook profiles with promises of free products. To sign up, users had to agree to notify each of their Facebook friends, among other things. Those notifications were transmitted based on a Facebook subscriber?s account settings, but could potentially have been delivered as a posting on the user?s wall, in his or her news feed, to a user?s Facebook message inbox, and to users? external e-mail addresses. The court concluded that each type of message could fall under the Act. The Act was intended to apply broadly, and its restrictions on misleading header information reach all communications sent to unique electronic destinations, not just to traditional e-mail.