Legal Background: The Laws Governing Junk Mail

Understanding why you cannot opt out of EDDM junk mail requires understanding the legal framework that governs the U.S. Postal Service, mailbox access, and advertising mail. This page examines the key federal statutes, regulations, and court decisions that shape—and constrain—your rights as a mail recipient.

The Federal Mailbox Monopoly: 18 U.S.C. § 1725

The foundation of USPS control over junk mail delivery is the federal mailbox monopoly, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1725. This statute makes it a federal offense for anyone other than the USPS to deposit "mailable matter" in a mailbox.

"Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits any mailable matter such as statements of accounts, circulars, sale bills, or other like matter... in any letter box established, approved, or accepted by the Postal Service... shall be fined under this title."
— 18 U.S.C. § 1725

This law means that while you own your physical mailbox, you do not control what goes into it. Only USPS carriers have legal access, and the Postal Service decides what they will and will not deliver.

Origins of the Mailbox Monopoly

The mailbox monopoly traces back to the Private Express Statutes, which date to 1792 and were strengthened throughout the 19th century. Originally designed to prevent competitors from undercutting USPS letter delivery, the monopoly was extended to mailboxes themselves to protect postal revenue and mail security.

A 1997 GAO report examined whether mailbox access restrictions should be relaxed in the modern era but concluded that the USPS monopoly remained justified for security and operational reasons. Consumer convenience was not a primary consideration.

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006

Public Law 109-435, known as the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, significantly restructured USPS operations. Among its provisions:

• Created the category of "market-dominant" mail products, which includes most advertising mail
• Gave USPS authority to create new products and pricing within this category
• Required USPS to become financially self-sufficient (no taxpayer funding)
• Imposed heavy pension pre-funding requirements that increased pressure to maximize revenue

PAEA's financial mandates created strong incentives for USPS to grow advertising mail revenue. EDDM was developed under this framework as a way to attract small business advertisers who might otherwise use digital channels.

EDDM Regulatory Authority: Federal Register 2012-25059

EDDM was launched as a pilot program in 2011 through Postal Bulletin 22312. After the pilot demonstrated strong uptake, the USPS made EDDM permanent through a Federal Register final rule (77 FR 62429) in October 2012.

The rule established EDDM as a "Retail" product allowing businesses to:

• Send mail to every address on a postal route without address lists
• Use simplified addressing ("Postal Customer")
• Pay reduced "saturation" postage rates
• Drop mail at local post offices rather than business mail entry units

Notably, the Federal Register notice included no discussion of consumer opt-out rights or environmental impact. Public comments during the rulemaking period focused on operational details, not consumer protection.

Consumer Rights: 39 U.S.C. § 3008 and Prohibitory Orders

39 U.S.C. § 3008 provides one of the few legal mechanisms for consumers to stop unwanted mail. Under this statute, a person may file a "prohibitory order" (PS Form 1500) against a specific sender of "pandering advertisements."

However, this protection is severely limited:

• Originally designed for sexually-oriented material
• Requires filing paperwork for each individual sender
• The recipient determines what they find offensive—but USPS interprets this narrowly
• Does not apply to EDDM because there is no identifiable "sender" to block (mail is addressed to "Postal Customer")

While some consumer advocates have attempted to use Section 3008 broadly, USPS and the courts have consistently limited its application to truly "pandering" content rather than general advertising.

Rowan v. United States Post Office Department (1970)

The landmark Supreme Court case Rowan v. United States Post Office Department (397 U.S. 728, 1970) addressed the conflict between advertiser free speech and consumer privacy. The Court upheld the constitutionality of 39 U.S.C. § 3008, ruling:

"The ancient concept that 'a man's home is his castle' into which 'not even the king may enter' has lost none of its vitality... We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another."

This language would seem to support broad consumer opt-out rights. However, the Court's ruling was narrowly tied to the specific statute at issue (sexually-oriented mail). Lower courts and USPS have declined to extend Rowan to general advertising mail.

Why Rowan Doesn't Stop EDDM

Rowan has not been applied to EDDM or saturation mail for several reasons:

• The case interpreted a specific statute, not a general constitutional right
• EDDM mail is not addressed to individuals, making the "prohibitory order" mechanism inapplicable
• No subsequent legislation has extended Rowan's principles to general advertising
• Courts have been reluctant to create new mail rights without Congressional action

First Amendment Considerations

Commercial advertising, including direct mail, receives First Amendment protection—though less than political or artistic speech. Under the Central Hudson test (1980), government restrictions on commercial speech must:

1. Serve a substantial government interest
2. Directly advance that interest
3. Be no more restrictive than necessary

The mailing industry argues that mandatory opt-out registries would violate advertisers' First Amendment rights. However, Rowan established that consumer privacy in the home can override advertiser speech rights. A properly designed Do Not Mail registry would likely survive constitutional challenge—the barrier is political, not legal.

Failed Legislative Attempts

Multiple bills to create a "Do Not Mail" registry have been introduced in Congress, including:

• H.R. 3319 (2007) — "Do Not Mail Act of 2007"
• H.R. 2008 (2009) — "Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act" (which included mail provisions)
• Various state-level proposals in California, New York, and other states

None have passed. Opposition comes from:

• The direct mail industry, which spends millions lobbying annually
• USPS itself, which depends on advertising mail revenue
• Postal unions, concerned about job losses from reduced mail volume
• Small business advocates, who argue EDDM is an affordable advertising channel

The Regulatory Gap

Unlike other marketing channels, postal advertising exists in a regulatory gap:

This gap exists because the USPS is both the regulator of mail delivery and a beneficiary of advertising mail volume—a fundamental conflict of interest that has prevented consumer protection.

Key Legal Documents

For researchers and advocates, these are the primary legal sources governing EDDM and advertising mail:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1725 — Mailbox access restrictions ("mailbox monopoly")
• 39 U.S.C. § 3008 — Prohibitory orders for pandering advertisements
• Public Law 109-435 — Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006
• 77 FR 62429 — Federal Register final rule making EDDM permanent (2012)
• Postal Bulletin 22312 — Original EDDM pilot launch (2011)
• Rowan v. USPS — 397 U.S. 728 (1970)
• Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) — USPS operational rules for EDDM