In comments to the post about MySpace/Wallace below, John Levine writes:

The question of whether MySpace messages are covered by CAN SPAM was settled in Myspace vs. Theglobe in February. Considering that this case has very similar facts and is in the same court, it's vanishingly unlikely that the judge would contradict her colleague and find differently. I also happen to think that it's the right answer. While it is true that the impetus for CAN SPAM was to protect that ability of bulk mailers to send Internet junk mail, they declined to limit it to Internet mail. Since Congress could have written the definition of "electronic mail message" to limit it to mail sent via SMTP, but didn't, anything sent to an address counts, and MySpace messages certainly qualify.

I remember seeing The Globe in February and not having time to post about it -- John's right it comes to roughly the same conclusion.  However, it's far from certain as to whether this issue is "settled".  In fact, if anything, I would guarantee it gets revisited.  BNA's post about The Globe case gives one a feel for the stretching that had to occur in order to fit Defendants' conduct into CAN-SPAM:

MySpace.com and two of its litigation counsel, Ian C. Ballon and Wendy M. Mantell, at Greenberg Traurig, appear to have found a winning recipe for keeping spammers off MySpace.com's social network: Start with a creative interpretation of federal and state anti-spam provisions, top off with an aggressive terms of service agreement that demands liquidated damages for violations.

There's no doubt that the MySpace rulings broaden the scope of CAN-SPAM (ironic, given the rumors underlying MySpace's beginnings ("MySpace: The Business of Spam 2.0 (Exhaustive Edition)").  But more interesting is what possible effects this ruling could have in other areas.  How about trying to fashion a CAN-SPAM violation out of "send to a friend" messages?