Here's what I get from it. At the bottom of page 2 (page 3 in the PDF), it explains the New York State Attorney's explanation for what constitutes opt-in. It says, it part:
The issues before this court center around [...] what is the definition of an opt-in or permission based protocol. Petitioners argue that in accordance with generally accepted industry wide standards, in an opt-in protocol consumer e-mail addresses are collected and used only if the consumer affirmatively approves such collection. For example, a consumer must mark a box indicating the desire to allow the use of his or her email address. [emphasis added]Then, the judge grants the following relief toward the end:
Respondent is permanently enjoined from further engaging in any of the fraudulent, deceptive, and illgal acts and practices pertaining to representations of "opt-in", "opt-out" or the "permission based" nature of their protocols or collection and use of their email data.It appears to me that this can be interpeted to say that if you do not respect permission by getting an opt-in and/or respecting opt-outs, you're spamming (which makes you subject to restrictions under various anti-spam laws), and if you say you're not spamming when you do that, you're lying and likely legally liable.
Good news on the anti-spam legal front.
Find a link to the press release here.