That is, if a rule as applied to electronic commerce imposes the requirement of a writing on a marketer, application of that rule also should allow that marketer to select one of the electronic media when optional forms of communication are available for providing information, notice, etc. to consumers. Therefore, if a rule that requires a written statement obligates a marketer in electronic media to post such a statement on its website, then any notice provision or other consumer protection mechanism that is required to be in writing also should be satisfied by employing electronic media. Any consumer that communicates with a marketer via electronic media should be deemed to have given permission to receive communications back from that marketer via electronic media. In the same manner that the presumption of regularity assumes that something placed in the U.S. mails will be delivered and received, a corresponding presumption should apply where, as in the example just given, a consumer has demonstrated the technological capability of receiving a marketer's communication. No additional burden should be placed on a marketer to prove actual receipt.
None is present in traditional media.
An education process, and time for it to work, appears to be in order. The proposal regarding clear and conspicuous disclosures is perhaps the area, more than any other area addressed in the proposal, in which DMA most strongly urges the Commission to proceed with caution. The underlying policy of any clear and conspicuous requirement is that a consumer should be in a position to receive the information contained in the disclosure, i.e., the disclosure will be readily noticeable, readable and comprehensible. However, there may be a number of different ways to accomplish that. There is no dispute that disclosures that are required in traditional media in order to avoid deception should also be made in electronic media.