Is this bill constitutional? Won't it face First Amendment challenges?

Yes, the bill is constitutionally defensible. The Supreme Court ruled in Rowan v. USPS (1970) that "a mailer's right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee." The Do Not Call Registry faced identical First Amendment challenges and won in Mainstream Marketing v. FTC (2004). This bill follows the same constitutional framework—it doesn't ban commercial speech, it requires consent.

Why isn't political mail exempt?

Previous bills that exempted political mail were criticized as self-serving—politicians exempting themselves. If consumers have the right to refuse commercial advertising, they should have the same right to refuse political advertising. The bill only exempts official election materials (voter registration, ballot info), not campaign advertising. This principled consistency strengthens the bill's constitutional foundation.

Won't this hurt small businesses?

The bill actually protects small senders with a 6-month delayed enforcement for those sending fewer than 100,000 pieces annually. Additionally, small local businesses increasingly prefer digital advertising—it's cheaper and more targeted. The industry's "small business" framing is strategic PR; the top EDDM users are large national chains and franchises.

What about the claimed 460,000 jobs?

This figure is inflated and outdated. It includes all printing, paper manufacturing, and postal jobs—not just advertising mail jobs. It counts some jobs in multiple categories and is based on 2007 data when the industry was much larger. The Netherlands' experience shows businesses adapt: 81% opted out, yet no documented wave of bankruptcies occurred.

Will this bankrupt the Postal Service?

No. USPS has lost $118 billion since 2007 despite advertising mail revenue—junk mail hasn't saved it. The primary cause was the PAEA pre-funding mandate (partially fixed in 2022). Mail volume has declined 50% since 2001 regardless. The future of USPS is packages and priority services, not forcing unwanted advertising on consumers.

Is a national opt-in registry even feasible?

Yes. We already run the Do Not Call Registry with 246+ million phone numbers. The Netherlands implements the JA-sticker system with simple physical stickers—no complex database needed for basic operation. Technology has advanced dramatically since 2007. This is not a hard technical problem.

Why FTC administration instead of USPS?

USPS has a fundamental conflict of interest: its revenue depends on advertising mail volume, its Board includes industry representatives, and it has lobbied against previous Do Not Mail bills. The FTC is the appropriate agency because it already runs the successful Do Not Call Registry, is independent of postal operations, and has a consumer protection mission aligned with the bill's goals.

What about the physical sticker option?

The physical sticker (modeled on Netherlands' JA-sticker) is simple and self-enforcing: visible to neighbors, requires no technology, and accommodates those without internet access. It creates community awareness and allows easy compliance verification. The bill allows both digital registration AND physical stickers as equivalent consent mechanisms.

Why has previous Do Not Mail legislation failed?

Previous bills (H.R. 3319 in 2007) failed due to structural weaknesses: opt-out models that placed burden on consumers, weak penalties ($10,000 max), no private right of action, broad exemptions including all political mail, and USPS administration despite its conflict of interest. This bill addresses every one of those weaknesses with an opt-in model, strong penalties, private enforcement, minimal exemptions, and FTC administration.

How do we overcome industry lobbying?

Industry spent $5-10 million lobbying against previous bills. This bill is designed to build a broader coalition: conservatives (property rights, end USPS subsidy), progressives (environment, 100M trees), seniors (fraud protection), and even some businesses (ROI improves when reaching willing recipients only). The 89% public support crosses party lines.

What does the Netherlands experience prove?

The Netherlands JA-sticker system demonstrates that opt-in is legally permissible (Dutch Supreme Court upheld it in 2021), operationally feasible (62 municipalities implemented successfully), and popular (81% opted out, 92% satisfaction). Businesses adapted without collapse. This real-world evidence directly refutes industry predictions of economic disaster.

How does this compare to the Do Not Call Registry?

The Do Not Call Registry provides the direct model: FTC administration, national registry, fee-based industry access, and (via TCPA) private right of action. Our bill improves on this by using opt-in rather than opt-out, and adding a physical sticker option. The Do Not Call Registry has 246+ million registrations, proving Americans want protection from unwanted solicitation.

Legislative Toolkit: EDDM Consumer Choice Act of 2026 | Zero Junk Mail

Executive Summary

TL;DR

Americans can opt out of telemarketing calls, unsubscribe from emails, block spam texts, and refuse junk faxes. But they cannot opt out of advertising mail delivered by their own government. The EDDM Consumer Choice Act closes this regulatory gap by requiring consent before saturation mail is delivered.

100M

Trees cut annually

$320M

Taxpayer disposal cost

81%

Netherlands opt-out rate

Quick Downloads

Model Bill Text Executive Summary One-Page Fact Sheet Section Analysis

PDF documents available for printing and distribution

The Problem: The Regulatory Gap

Every major marketing channel has federal consumer opt-out protection—except postal advertising mail:

Channel	Opt-Out Mechanism	Law	Private Action	Penalty
Telemarketing	Do Not Call Registry	TCPA / TSR	Yes	$500-$1,500/call
Email	Required unsubscribe link	CAN-SPAM Act	No	$53,088/violation
Text Messages	Prior express consent	TCPA	Yes	$500-$1,500/text
Fax	Prior relationship required	Junk Fax Prevention Act	Yes	$500-$1,500/fax
Postal Mail (EDDM)	NONE	No applicable law	No	$0

Postal mail is the ONLY major marketing channel with no federal consumer opt-out protection.

The Solution: Opt-In, Not Opt-Out

Current System

You receive advertising unless you opt out—but you cannot opt out

Proposed System

You receive advertising only if you opt in

The Netherlands JA-Sticker Model

The Netherlands has successfully implemented an opt-in system for advertising mail. Households must display a “JA” (Yes) sticker to receive advertising. The result:

81% of households chose NOT to receive advertising
Dutch Supreme Court upheld the system in June 2021
62 of 342 municipalities have adopted it (~40% of population)
No documented wave of business bankruptcies
Consumer satisfaction: 92% among those who opted out

Model Bill Summary

The EDDM Consumer Choice Act of 2026 establishes an opt-in system for saturation advertising mail, modeled on the proven Do Not Call Registry and Netherlands JA-sticker systems.

Key Innovations

1

Opt-In Model (Not Opt-Out)

Flips the default: no saturation mail unless consumers affirmatively consent. Previous bills used opt-out, placing burden on consumers.

Precedent: Netherlands JA-sticker system (81% chose not to receive)

2

Private Right of Action

Individuals can sue for $500-$1,500 per piece. This is the most powerful enforcement mechanism, creating market-based enforcement.

Precedent: TCPA (has generated $200M+ in settlements)

3

Political Mail NOT Exempt

Only official election materials exempt, not campaign advertising. Previous bills exempting political mail were criticized as self-serving.

Precedent: Principled consistency—politicians should not exempt themselves

4

Physical Sticker Option

Simple mailbox indicator as alternative to digital registration. Self-enforcing, requires no technology, accommodates all consumers.

Precedent: Netherlands JA-sticker (simple, effective, popular)

5

FTC Administration

Independent agency avoids USPS conflict of interest (USPS revenue depends on advertising mail volume).

Precedent: Do Not Call Registry (FTC-administered, 246M+ registrations)

Bill Structure: 15 Sections

§1 Short Title

§2 Congressional Findings

§3 Definitions

§4 Opt-In Registry

§5 Fees

§6 Enforcement

§7 Postal Service Cooperation

§8 Consumer Education

§9 Annual Reports

§10 Implementation Timeline

§11 Authorization of Appropriations

§12 Exemptions

§13 Effective Date

§14 Severability

§15 Preemption

Section-by-Section Analysis

Click each section to expand detailed analysis, key provisions, and legal basis.

Key Statistics

Environmental Impact

100 million

Trees cut annually for junk mail

Source: Center for Development of Recycling

51.5 million

Metric tons of CO2 emissions annually

Source: VoLo Foundation

28 billion

Gallons of water consumed annually

Source: ForestEthics/Stand.earth

Consumer Impact

44%

Of junk mail thrown away unopened

Source: EPA

848

Junk mail pieces per household annually

Source: VoLo Foundation

89%

Of Americans support a Do Not Mail registry

Source: Zogby International (2007)

Economic & Fraud Statistics

$320 million

Annual taxpayer cost to dispose of junk mail

Source: Municipal studies

$118 billion

USPS cumulative losses since 2007

Source: USPS/GAO

3 billion

EDDM pieces delivered annually

Source: USPS

$4.9 billion

In mail-based fraud losses (2024)

Source: FBI IC3

$3.4 billion

Annual elder fraud losses (all channels)

Source: FBI IC3

International Comparison (Netherlands)

81%

Of Dutch households opted OUT when given choice

Source: Netherlands municipal data

62

Dutch municipalities using JA-sticker (of 342)

Source: March 2024 data

6,000+

Metric tons of paper saved annually (Netherlands)

Source: Amsterdam city reports

Constitutional Basis

This bill is designed to withstand First Amendment challenges based on established Supreme Court precedent.

Rowan v. United States Post Office Department

397 U.S. 728 (1970)

“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.”

Significance: Establishes that consumer privacy can override advertiser speech rights in the home context.

Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission

447 U.S. 557 (1980)

The four-part test for commercial speech restrictions:

Is the speech lawful and not misleading? (Yes)
Is there a substantial government interest? (Yes: privacy per Rowan, environment, fraud prevention)
Does the restriction directly advance that interest? (Yes: opt-in directly reduces unwanted mail)
Is the restriction no more extensive than necessary? (Yes: only saturation mail affected, willing recipients still receive)

Significance: The four-part test for commercial speech restrictions. This bill satisfies all four prongs.

Mainstream Marketing Services v. FTC

358 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2004)

“The national do-not-call registry is a reasonable fit with the government's interest in protecting the privacy of individuals.”

Significance: Directly validates the registry model against identical constitutional arguments.

Frequently Asked Questions for Legislators

Talking Points by Audience

Select the tab that matches your audience for tailored messaging:

Frame: Property Rights and Limited Government

Primary Messages

"The government shouldn't force advertising into your home." Your mailbox is your property. You should decide what enters your home.
"End the USPS advertising subsidy." EDDM uses taxpayer infrastructure for private profit. Consumers bear disposal costs for mail they never requested.
"Protect Americans from fraud." $4.9 billion in mail-based fraud annually. Seniors disproportionately victimized. Opt-in gives families a protection tool.

Specific Talking Points

"Why should the government decide what advertising you have to receive?"
"Conservatives believe in property rights—that includes your mailbox."
"Free markets require informed consumers who can choose. Current law removes that choice."
"This isn't about banning speech—it's about requiring consent."

Addressing Concerns

"This is regulation"

→ This is DEREGULATION—removing government-mandated delivery of advertising

"It will hurt businesses"

→ Businesses adapted to Do Not Call; Netherlands had no economic collapse

"First Amendment"

→ Even Scalia recognized speech doesn't include forcing messages into homes

"USPS needs revenue"

→ USPS lost $118B since 2007—junk mail hasn't saved it

Industry Opposition & Responses

The direct mail industry has developed sophisticated arguments against Do Not Mail legislation. Here are the key arguments and how to respond:

Industry Argument	One-Line Response
460,000 jobs depend on direct mail	That counts all mail jobs, not just junk mail—and the Netherlands didn't collapse
This will devastate small businesses	Small businesses prefer digital; the bill gives them extra time anyway
This will hurt the economy	Producing trash isn't economic productivity—it's waste
This violates the First Amendment	Supreme Court already ruled advertisers can't force mail into homes (Rowan)
Political mail exemption is required by the First Amendment	Politicians shouldn't exempt themselves; the bill treats all ads equally
An opt-in registry is unworkable	We run a 246-million-number phone registry; this isn't harder
Consumers will be confused	Opt-in is simpler: no mail unless you want it
DMAchoice already allows opt-out	DMAchoice doesn't stop EDDM—that's the whole problem
Just throw it away	44% already do—that's the problem, not the solution
This will bankrupt the Postal Service	USPS lost $118B despite junk mail—it hasn't saved them
The mailbox monopoly requires delivery	Congress created the monopoly and can modify it
Consumers who want advertising will be harmed	Then they can opt in; 81% chose not to in Netherlands

Detailed Rebuttals

Take Action

Sign the Petition

Join thousands of Americans demanding consumer choice for advertising mail.

Sign the Petition

Share This Toolkit

Copy the link to share with colleagues, constituents, or staff:

zerojunkmail.org/legislators

Download All Materials

Model Bill Executive Summary Section Analysis One-Pager Talking Points FAQ Counterarguments Comparison Tables