The Electronic Commerce Protection Act - The Enforcement Prohibitions |
| Print | |
|
Tuesday April 28, 2009
|
|||||
|
The Electronic Commerce Protection Act will accomplish little if there is not a real commitment to enforcement. The enforcement provisions form the bulk of anti-spam bill (my review of the prohibitions here, the effect on the do-not-call list here). The enforcement part of the bill includes details on who does the enforcing, investigative powers, and penalties associated with anti-spam violations. The short version is that the CRTC has been given a wide range of investigatory powers, including the power to compel ISPs to preserve transmission data. Once it concludes its investigation, it can pursue a settlement or bring a notice of violation. The penalties run as high as $10 million. There are also smaller roles for the Privacy Commissioner and Competition Bureau as well as provisions to facilitate anti-spam lawsuits. The more detailed version is:
CRTC Enforcement Comments (3)
![]()
Stephen Tyers
said:
|
|||||
|
New Anti-Spam Bill will cost Canadian businesses millions My name is Stephen Tyers. I am a Canadian that has been living in New Zealand for the last 3 years. My current position is Director of Deliverability and ISP relations at a company called Jericho Ltd. We handle the marketing emails for Telecom and as well as a number of other large New Zealand corporates. I have also been actively involved with the Marketing Association here and I am currently involved with a group proposing changes to the New Zealand anti-spam law. I have a unique viewpoint having been a for ISP in Canada. As I am sure that you are aware the Canadian Bill closely follows the New Zealand law that was passed last year. What you may not be aware of is that companies here in New Zealand faced with new law here last year were advised by their lawyers to confirm opt-in for all subscribers as opt-in was required under the law. The result was that New Zealand business lost the ability to communicate by email with up to 60% of its customer base. The misconception is that a business has done business with all the people subscribed to its current lists. The reality is that companies such as Air Canada, Canadian Tire, Futureshop and many more have interested people on their current lists that have not yet purchased. The fallout will not be felt until the Law passes and it will result in a loss of millions of dollars in invested marketing efforts and loss of future business. I am happy to provide you specific numbers of loss, and New Zealand corporate lawyers advice that resulted in what I have described. The same will happen in Canada as corporate risk averse lawyers will ultimately be involved in advising their clients. The problem that is also not being considered is that common tool used by marketers which is "friend get friend." This involves a friend requesting that his friend should a receive an single email (This does not give the company the right to send further emails unless the recipient opts-in). Under the law in New Zealand and the Bill in Canada this activity in not allowed. This means the functionality in Facebook as well as other many other sites will be liable under the Bill as it reads. This need to be carefully reviewed in light of what has happened in other countries. Canadian companies will face millions in legal fees and loss of business as a result. According to a recent international study Laws need to draw "bright lines". What laws seem to miss the distinction between transactional email and bulk email. They choose to use the nature of the email "Commercial or Not" as the point of distinction. Spam is unwanted or unsolicited commercial bulk email. Laws need to support internationally accepted best practices enabling the industries suffering the cost of Spam as well as consumers the ability to enforce consequences. Mail box providers and legitimate permission based senders live in a commercial environment so their best practices are already based on workable rules. |
|
... Stephen Tyers wrote: "What you may not be aware of is that companies here in New Zealand faced with new law here last year were advised by their lawyers to confirm opt-in for all subscribers as opt-in was required under the law." Well? Isn't that a good thing? |