Skip to content

Client Update: One final reminder – Are You Ready for Anti-Spam?

Any individual, business or organization that uses email, text messages or social networks to promote their products and services should take note of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation and its accompanying regulations. Effective July 1, 2014, the new law will regulate electronic interaction and communication between businesses and their customers – existing or potential.

 

SPAM – COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MESSAGES

The law creates a broad prohibition on sending, causing or permitting to be sent any type of commercial electronic message (CEM) without the express or implied consent of the recipient. CEMs must also identify the sender and their contact information as well as include an unsubscribe function. Any electronic message sent for the purpose of encouraging participation in a commercial activity, regardless of whether there is an expectation of profit, may be subject to the law’s requirements.

The law’s consent requirements create a regime where potential recipients must “opt-in” before receiving a CEM. A request for express consent must:

  • State the purpose(s) for which consent is being sought.
  • Provide the name of the person seeking consent, the name of any person on whose behalf consent is sought, the name by which either carries on business and a statement indicating which person is seeking consent and which person on whose behalf consent is sought.
  • Include the mailing address and either the phone number or email/web address of the person seeking consent or the person on whose behalf consent is sought.
  • State that consent can be withdrawn.
  • Not be bundled with other terms and conditions.

A request for consent may be obtained orally or in paper form. After July 1st, consent cannot be obtained by email or other electronic form unless the request (itself a CEM) falls under an exception from the consent requirement.

 

THE EXCEPTIONS

Importantly, there are exceptions to the requirements of the law.

Exceptions Where the Law Does Not Apply
There are some CEMs to which the law does not apply, meaning there are no consent, contact information or unsubscribe function requirements. This includes:

  • Business to Business communications: provided the organizations have a relationship and the CEM concerns the activities of the organization receiving the message.
  • Charities: provided the CEM is sent by a registered charity for the primary purpose of raising funds.

In addition, the law does not apply to:

  • Family or Personal communications.
  • Commercial Inquiry communications.
  • Internal Business communications.
  • Prompted communications.
  • Electronic Messaging services/Social Network communications.
  • Secure Account communications.
  • Foreign Destination communications.
  • Political Solicitation communications.

See our Guide referenced at the end of this update for more detail on the particulars of these exceptions.

Consent Exceptions
Express consent from the recipient is not required to send a CEM:

  • In an existing business relationship: if within the last two years there has been a purchase of products or services or the acceptance of a business or investment opportunity, or within the last six months there has been an inquiry from the recipient to the sender.
  • In an existing non-business relationship: if within the last two years there has been a donation of time or money to a registered charity, political party, organization or candidate, or, membership in a club, association or volunteer organization.
  • If the recipient has conspicuously published their email address or disclosed their address to the sender, has not indicated they do not wish to receive unsolicited CEMs and the message is relevant to the recipient’s business or official capacity.

In these situations, consent is implied. However, implied consent does not relieve the sender of the contact information and unsubscribe function requirements. Further, a recipient may revoke their implied consent at any time.

Other Exceptions for Consent
There are other exceptions where neither express nor implied consent is required to send a CEM. These include messages to:

  • Provide a quote or estimate as requested by the recipient.
  • Facilitate, complete, or confirm a commercial transaction between the sender and recipient that the recipient previously agreed to enter into with the sender.
  • Provide warranty/safety/recall/security information about a product or services used or purchased by the recipient.
  • Provide notification of factual information about an ongoing subscription, membership, account, loan or similar relationship or goods or services offered thereunder.
  • Provide information directly related to a current employment relationship or benefit plan.
  • Deliver a product, good or service, including updates and upgrades further to an existing relationship.
  • Third Party Referrals: a CEM may be sent without consent based on a referral by a third party, provided that the third party has a relationship with both the sender and recipient.

 

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU AND YOUR BUSINESS

There is no phase-in period; all commercial electronic messages must comply with the new law beginning July 1, 2014. However, there is a three-year grace period where consent to receive a message will be implied if at any time in the past there has been an existing business or non-business relationship. Penalties for contravention of the law range from up to $1 million for individuals to $10 million for businesses, corporations and organizations.

To learn more about Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation and its requirements, see our Guide to CASL.

The foregoing is intended for general information only and is not intended as legal advice. If you have any questions, visit our IP/IT Entertainment Group. For more on our firm see www.stewartmckelvey.com.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: Recent Developments: Disability Insurance Policies

December 17, 2014

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: DISABILITY INSURANCE POLICIES & LIMITATION PERIODS IN NOVA SCOTIA Two recent Nova Scotia decisions have clarified the issue of limitation periods in disability insurance policies and “rolling” limitation periods.   THORNTON V. RBC…

Read More

Client Update: Changes to Related Party Election (Section 156 – Excise Tax Act)

December 16, 2014

Section 156 of the Excise Tax Act (the “ETA“) provides an election that relieves certain related parties from having to collect Harmonized Sales Tax (“HST“) on the goods and services sold between them. The election deems qualifying…

Read More

Doing Business in Atlantic Canada (Fall 2014) (Canadian Lawyer Magazine Supplement)

November 20, 2014

IN THIS ISSUE: More Than Wind – Emergence of Tidal Energy in Atlantic Canada by Sadira Jan Aquaculture and Salmon Farming in Atlantic Canada by Greg Harding The Expanding Atlantic Canada Offshore Industry: Growing Offshore without Going Offside by Stephen Penney and Rebecca…

Read More

Client Update: Truth or Consequences – The New Duty of Honest Performance in Commercial Contracts

November 17, 2014

The Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous decision in the breach of contract case Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 was released on November 13, 2014. The case is important in the law of contracts because…

Read More

Client Update: Recent Changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program

August 28, 2014

On June 20, 2014, the Government of Canada announced a series of reforms to overhaul the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (“TFWP”). These reforms, many of which are effective immediately, function to: Re-organize the TFWP  The…

Read More

Atlantic Employers’ Counsel – Summer 2014

August 1, 2014

The Editor’s Corner Clarence Bennett Summer is halfway over, but we know you will want to take this edition along with you while you enjoy more summer weather and time out of the office. Employers…

Read More

Client Update – Tsilhqot’in Nation – An East Coast Perspective

July 9, 2014

On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada released one of the most significant aboriginal law decisions since Marshall – Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 (also known as the William decision).  This decision could have…

Read More

Client Update: Nova Scotia Supreme Court awards $500,000 in Punitive Damages in LTD case

July 9, 2014

In Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Brine, 2014 NSSC 219, National Life (and later its successor Industrial Alliance) alleged Brine had received undisclosed CPP and Superannuation disability benefits resulting in a substantial overpayment of…

Read More

Client Update: One final reminder – Are You Ready for Anti-Spam?

June 20, 2014

Any individual, business or organization that uses email, text messages or social networks to promote their products and services should take note of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation and its accompanying regulations. Effective July 1, 2014, the…

Read More

Doing Business in Atlantic Canada (Summer 2014)(Canadian Lawyer magazine supplement)

June 17, 2014

IN THIS ISSUE: Consistent Use: The Collection of Union Members’ Personal Information by their Union by Alison Strachan and Jonah Clements. Single Incident of Offensive and Threatening Facebook Post is Just Cause by Harold Smith, QC. The New Anti-Spam Law –…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top