EDDM Legislative Toolkit and Model Bill

Names the bill the “EDDM Consumer Choice Act of 2026,” with an alternative title, the “Every Door Delivers Only to the Willing Act.”

Why it's written this way: A deliberate change from the “Do Not Mail” framing of the 2007 and 2008 state bills, none of which became law.

Nine findings that build the legislative record: the scale of EDDM, the gap in opt-out law, the waste, the Rowan precedent and opt-in systems abroad. The figures below are the October 2026 versions; several in the January 2026 PDF have been replaced.

Why it's written this way: Findings are the record a court reads when it weighs the government's interest under the Central Hudson test.

Defines nine terms. “Saturation mail” means advertising delivered to 90% or more of the addresses on a carrier route, not addressed to a named person, under a generic label such as “Postal Customer” or “Resident.”

Why it's written this way: The 90% threshold borrows from USPS's own saturation rule, which requires 90% of residential deliveries or 75% of all deliveries on a route.

Creates a Saturation Mail Opt-In Registry at the FTC within 18 months. An address gets no saturation mail unless the household registers it or displays a “yes” sticker.

Why it's written this way: Opt-in follows Amsterdam's sticker rule. FTC administration follows the National Do Not Call Registry, which the FTC has run since 2003.

Commercial senders pay for registry access: $100 per ZIP Code, $5,000 per state or $25,000 nationwide each year. Charities pay half.

Why it's written this way: Close to what telemarketers pay for the Do Not Call Registry: $82 per area code after the first five, up to $22,626 a year for every area code (FTC, from October 1, 2025).

Four layers: FTC civil penalties, investigation by the USPS Office of Inspector General, suits by state attorneys general, and a private right of action worth at least $500 per piece, or $1,500 if willful.

Why it's written this way: The private right of action copies the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which lets people sue for $500 per unlawful call or text, tripled if willful (47 U.S.C. 227).

Bars USPS from delivering saturation mail to addresses that have not opted in, and requires route address lists for the FTC, carrier training and quarterly reports.

Why it's written this way: Policy sits with the FTC, which has no stake in mail volume. Delivery stays with USPS, which already skips addresses that EDDM advertisers list as “Do Not Deliver.”

Requires an FTC public awareness campaign, materials in several languages and notices in every post office.

Why it's written this way: Households can only use an opt-in they know about, so education comes before enforcement in the timeline.

Requires an annual FTC report to Congress and Government Accountability Office (GAO) studies after three years and every five years after that.

Why it's written this way: Built-in measurement, so Congress can see what the opt-in changed and fix what doesn't work.

Phases in over 24 months: 12 months to build, 6 months of education and registration, delivery limits from month 19, and small senders from month 24.

Why it's written this way: Registration and education come first, so no household is cut off before it has had a chance to opt in.

Authorizes $15 million for the first two fiscal years, then such sums as needed, supplemented by registry fees.

Why it's written this way: Start-up money, then fees, the way telemarketers' access fees help fund the Do Not Call Registry.

Exempts official government mail, First-Class Mail addressed to a named person, and periodicals. Campaign advertising, most charity appeals and religious advertising are covered.

Why it's written this way: Narrow exemptions keep the opt-in meaningful, and covering campaign mail means lawmakers are not exempting their own advertising. The Do Not Call Registry, by contrast, does not cover political calls.

Takes effect on enactment; the delivery limit starts 19 months later.

If a court strikes down one provision, the rest of the act stays in force.

Why it's written this way: A standard clause, and an important one here: an opt-in default for mail would be challenged.

“Floor, not ceiling”: sets minimum federal protection and lets states go further.

Why it's written this way: Leaves room for states to experiment while keeping the federal rule as the minimum.

What they say: Advertising mail supports jobs in printing, paper and delivery. Restricting saturation mail puts those jobs at risk.

The answer: The bill covers saturation advertising only, about 9.7 billion of the 108.7 billion pieces USPS handled in fiscal 2025. Addressed mail, packages and saturation mail to households that opt in all continue. Ask any job estimate how much of it depends on unaddressed advertising specifically.

What they say: Small local businesses rely on affordable EDDM to reach their neighborhoods.

The answer: Senders mailing fewer than 100,000 saturation pieces a year get until month 24, and mail addressed to existing customers by name is untouched. Saturation prospecting is low-yield to begin with: USPS's household survey found ads from unfamiliar businesses were read 36% of the time, against 64% for businesses a household already uses.

What they say: Advertising mail drives sales. Restricting it will cost the economy.

The answer: In Dutch towns that switched to opt-in, University of Amsterdam researchers found flyer volume fell about 50% with hardly any effect on supermarket shopping, according to a 2024 study for the Dutch government. That research covered supermarkets, and some advertisers report lower sales. Meanwhile, households throw away 39% of advertising mail unread (USPS).

What they say: Commercial speech is protected. A registry that blocks advertising mail restricts advertisers' speech.

The answer: In Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Department (1970), the Supreme Court wrote: “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.” The Do Not Call Registry survived a First Amendment challenge in Mainstream Marketing Services v. FTC (2004). An opt-in default goes further than either case, so expect a challenge; the bill includes a severability clause.

What they say: Political speech gets the highest First Amendment protection, so political mail must be exempt.

The answer: The rule is content-neutral: it turns on how a piece is addressed and whether the household opted in, not on what the piece says. Campaigns can still mail voters by name and reach every household that opts in. And lawmakers are not exempting their own advertising.

What they say: A national opt-in registry would be an operational nightmare.

The answer: The FTC already runs the Do Not Call Registry, with more than 258 million active registrations in fiscal 2025. Dutch municipalities run opt-in with a mailbox sticker. And USPS already skips individual addresses when an EDDM advertiser lists them as “Do Not Deliver” on its paperwork.

What they say: An opt-in system will confuse people about what mail they will get.

The answer: The current system is the confusing one: the usual opt-outs, such as DMAchoice, don't stop EDDM, and nothing on the mailer says so. Opt-in is simple: no saturation ads unless you ask for them. In Dutch opt-in towns, 69% of residents view the system positively (GfK surveys, cited in a 2024 study for the Dutch government). The bill also pays for public education.

What they say: Industry self-regulation through DMAchoice already gives consumers a choice.

The answer: DMAchoice, now run by the Association of National Advertisers, removes names from the lists of companies that check it. EDDM uses no list, so DMAchoice can't stop it; its own FAQ says it “will not work to stop EDDM mailings.” The Direct Marketing Association launched a voluntary EDDM suppression form in 2012; by 2022 it was gone.

What they say: If people don't want the mail, they can throw it away.

The answer: They do: households throw away 39% of advertising mail without reading it (USPS Household Mail Survey, FY2025). Throwing it away doesn't stop it from being printed, delivered and collected as waste. 3.67 million tons of advertising mail entered the municipal waste stream in 2018 (EPA).

What they say: USPS depends on advertising mail revenue. Cutting volume means bailouts or service cuts.

The answer: EDDM brought in about $617 million in fiscal 2025, 0.8% of USPS operating revenue (USPS). USPS has lost $118 billion since 2007 (GAO, March 2026) and advertising is already most of what it delivers: Marketing Mail was 52% of its volume in fiscal 2025. Saturation mail keeps going to every household that opts in.

What they say: 18 U.S.C. 1725 gives USPS the mailbox, and with it the duty to deliver every lawful piece.

The answer: Congress created the mailbox rule in 1934 and can set conditions on it. USPS already skips addresses in one case: it tells EDDM advertisers to list customers who asked to be removed in a “Do Not Deliver Address” column on the mailing's paperwork. The bill lets households make that request directly.

What they say: Many households like advertising mail and use it to find deals.

The answer: They can opt in, online, by phone, by mail or with a sticker, and keep getting every flyer. In Amsterdam, 19% of households had a “yes” sticker in 2021 (NOS).