The anti-spam bill was recently passed [David Sanders: Bill C-28 is here in Bill form, and the final version is here on the federal e-law site), and here is a one-page HTML version on Canlii], and will be in force this year. It gives new tools to fight spam, but unfortunately defines spam so broadly that it will affect how most organizations conduct business.and what constitutes "consent" is a complicated thing. David Canton strongly recommends that all businesses and charities review the consent provisions to determine if their electronic communication policies need to change.
Businesses can’t just ignore the legislation. Remedies include fines of up to $1 million for individuals, $10 million for others […]
An e-mail to just one person you met at an event who you consider a potential customer may be considered spam [and] “electronic message” is broadly defined […]
Messages will not be considered spam if the recipient has consented to receiving the message. But it is up to the sender to show the recipient has consented if there is a complaint [...]"
The Act also links consent to purpose:
since my e-mail address is published on my firm’s website and other places, you may be able to e-mail me with anything relevant to the practice of law — but you won’t be able to e-mail me trying to sell me a trip. If I hand you my business card, the same applies.
Canton correctly notes that -- as with many pieces of legislation -- the devil will be in the details of the regulations that the legislature and bureaucracy will create to implement and enforce this Act, and those regulations haven't been published yet.
To keep tabs on e-law issues, keep an eye on David Canton’s blog on the topic.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment