Are claims of 90 million email 'protestors' who do more than mark as spam accurate, and do ESPs sell data?
Matthew Whittaker
Co-founder & CTO, Suped
Published 5 Aug 2025
Updated 16 Aug 2025
7 min read
Claims of 90 million email protestors who go beyond reporting mail as spam surface occasionally in the email deliverability community. These statements often imply a vast network of individuals taking significant, concerted actions against unwanted emails, beyond merely clicking a spam button. It raises questions about the legitimacy of such a claim and, importantly, whether Email Service Providers (ESPs) are involved in selling data to these alleged list hygiene services that purport to have access to this data.
Understanding the mechanisms of email feedback and data sharing is critical for anyone involved in email marketing or security. It helps to separate genuine insights from unsubstantiated claims, ensuring that your deliverability strategies are based on accurate information and ethical practices. Let's explore the reality behind these assertions.
The '90 million protestors' claim: dissecting the numbers
The idea of 90 million protestors taking action beyond simply marking an email as spam is highly questionable. While some dedicated anti-spam activists exist, their numbers are nowhere near 90 million. The vast majority of email users, when faced with unwanted mail, will either delete it, ignore it, or mark it as spam. According to data, most people prefer to avoid interaction with spam email by simply deleting it (40.8%), ignoring it (23.1%) or marking it as spam (19.9%). This indicates that more active forms of protest are far less common.
What going beyond the spam button might entail could include forwarding spam to abuse desks, reporting to public blocklists (or blacklists), or engaging directly with anti-spam organizations. However, these are typically manual and time-consuming efforts, not something 90 million people would routinely do for every unwanted email. The sheer volume of spam, which accounts for approximately 45% of all emails globally (that's about 14.5 million messages daily), makes such widespread, active protest unlikely.This massive volume makes active protest unrealistic.
The claim that a list hygiene service has them all is even more dubious. Such a comprehensive database would require unprecedented access to private user data across countless email providers globally, which is simply not feasible or legal for a third-party service to acquire. This suggests that the protestor claim is likely a marketing tactic rather than a factual statement about email user behavior or data collection.
The claim: 'Protestors' and universal data access
Scale of protest: Advocates claim 90 million users actively take steps beyond simply marking emails as spam.
Data collection: List hygiene services assert they have access to a comprehensive database of these protestors.
Purpose: To sell hygiene services based on this alleged data.
The reality: Feedback loops and legitimate data handling
User behavior: Most users simply delete, ignore, or click mark as spam for unwanted emails.
Feedback loops (FBLs): ISPs and Mailbox Providers (MBPs) use FBLs to inform ESPs about spam complaints. This is the primary legitimate channel.
Data privacy: Reputable ESPs uphold strict privacy policies and do not sell customer or subscriber data.
The core mechanism for how email providers manage spam complaints and feedback is through Feedback Loops (FBLs). When a subscriber marks an email as spam, Mailbox Providers (MBPs) such as Gmail or Outlook notify the sending ESP (Email Service Provider) via these FBLs. This allows ESPs to automatically suppress future mailings to that address and alert senders to potential issues with their campaigns. This process is how ESPs typically handle complaints, as outlined in what ESPs do when a subscriber marks an email as spam.
How email feedback and data actually work
ISPs and MBPs also gather various other forms of data to evaluate sender reputation, including engagement metrics (opens, clicks), bounce rates, and direct unsubscribes. They differentiate between single and bulk spam reports when evaluating sender reputation. This comprehensive approach is designed to protect their users from unwanted mail while allowing legitimate senders to reach the inbox. They do not, however, typically provide Google not spam feedback data.
Email deliverability is a complex system of trust. ESPs work to build and maintain trust with MBPs by ensuring their clients adhere to best practices and promptly act on feedback signals. High spam complaint rates can lead to severe consequences for senders, including IP or domain blocklisting (or blacklisting).
The focus for ESPs is on facilitating legitimate email communication, not on aggregating lists of protestors or selling such data. Their reputation depends on their ability to deliver legitimate emails effectively while mitigating spam.
Understanding email data and its use
Email Service Providers (ESPs) handle vast amounts of data, including sending metrics, recipient engagement, and complaint rates. This data is primarily used to enhance their services, optimize deliverability for their clients, and maintain a healthy email ecosystem. Legitimate uses of this data include:
Sender reputation management: Helping clients understand their email performance and identifying issues that might impact inbox placement.
Abuse prevention: Detecting and preventing spam, phishing, and other malicious activities originating from their platforms.
Service improvement: Optimizing their infrastructure and algorithms to improve email delivery efficiency.
Do ESPs sell data?
Reputable ESPs operate under strict privacy policies and generally do not sell their clients' or subscribers' data. Their business model is built on providing a reliable email sending service, not on monetizing user information. Selling data would erode trust, violate privacy laws (like GDPR or CCPA), and damage their reputation, leading to blocklists and poor deliverability.
However, the email ecosystem is vast, and there are less reputable players. Some data brokers or questionable list hygiene services may acquire email addresses and associated data through dubious means. This could include scraping publicly available information, purchasing outdated or consent-less lists, or even, in rare cases, obtaining bounce data or other metrics from less scrupulous ESPs. Selling bounce data can be a lucrative revenue stream for some ESPs, even if it's not a common or ethical practice across the industry.
These illegitimate methods can feed spam traps and contribute to issues like pristine spam traps, which are email addresses specifically set up to catch spammers. This is distinct from how legitimate email verification services operate, which focus on verifying the deliverability of an address without collecting or reselling sensitive user data.
When choosing an ESP or a list hygiene service, it is crucial to understand their data acquisition and privacy policies. Any service claiming access to vast, secret databases of protestors or offering suspiciously large email lists should be approached with extreme caution. Prioritizing consent and ethical data practices is fundamental to achieving and maintaining good email deliverability and protecting your sender reputation.
Internal suppression of invalid addresses. Informing senders.
Selling bounce data to email verification or list hygiene services.
Engagement metrics
Providing insights to clients for campaign optimization. Internal reputation scoring.
Sharing individual user engagement data with third parties for unknown purposes.
Maintaining a healthy sender reputation
In the world of email deliverability, unsubstantiated claims can be distracting and misleading. Focus instead on established best practices to ensure your emails reach the inbox. This means prioritizing explicit consent, maintaining a clean and engaged list, and actively monitoring your sender reputation.
Regularly check your metrics, respond to feedback loop data, and proactively address any issues that arise, such as high spam complaint rates or listings on a blocklist (or blacklist). By adhering to ethical sending practices and leveraging transparent tools, you can build a strong sender reputation and achieve consistent deliverability, without needing to worry about mythical protestor lists.
Views from the trenches
Best practices
Always prioritize explicit consent for your email list to avoid unwanted emails.
Regularly monitor your spam complaint rates and adjust your sending practices accordingly.
Segment your audience and tailor content to improve engagement and reduce complaints.
Implement email authentication standards like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC for better deliverability.
Stay informed about ISP and mailbox provider policies to adapt your sending strategies.
Common pitfalls
Purchasing or using rented email lists, which often contain spam traps or unengaged users.
Ignoring low engagement rates or high bounce rates, which negatively impact sender reputation.
Sending emails without proper opt-in, leading to high spam complaint rates.
Failing to suppress unsubscribed users promptly, causing further complaints.
Over-relying on vague claims from third-party data providers instead of real metrics.
Expert tips
A clean list is more valuable than a large one, focus on quality over quantity for deliverability.
Engage in two-way communication: encourage replies and provide easy unsubscribe options.
Leverage email analytics to understand subscriber behavior and optimize your campaigns.
Even a low spam complaint rate, such as 0.1%, can negatively impact your sender reputation.
Use email validation services carefully. Ensure they adhere to ethical data practices.
Marketer view
A marketer from Email Geeks says that the notion of 90 million email recipients being 'protestors' who actively go beyond marking emails as spam is likely an exaggeration used for marketing.
March 23, 2022 - Email Geeks
Marketer view
A marketer from Email Geeks says that some list hygiene services used to operate fake 'Global Opt-Out' sites to collect data feeds.
Gmail or 
Outlook notify the sending ESP (Email Service Provider) via these FBLs. This allows ESPs to automatically suppress future mailings to that address and alert senders to potential issues with their campaigns. This process is how ESPs typically handle complaints, as outlined in what ESPs do when a subscriber marks an email as spam.
Google not spam feedback data.
