And the other shoe has dropped.
In the first publicized application of penalties under Canada’s new anti-spam law, the CRTC announced earlier today that it has imposed penalties of $1.1-million Canadian (about $880K USD) against a firm for four separate violations. The violations include sending email without the consent of its recipients, and for sending mail without a functioning unsubscribe mechanism.
In the announcement, the CRTC identifies the target of the enforcement action as a Canadian company named Compu-Finder, whose mail promotes training courses to other businesses.
There are a couple of other interesting aspects to the action, aside from its novelty, and I wonder whether the CRTC will be able or willing to share additional details later on: Continue reading
I’ve not observed these in the wild – nor should I have, so far, as there are still three weeks and change left on the calendar before CASL goes into effect. But I’d bet you a box of meat we’ll soon see a new type of spam trap meant to tease out data from the spam stream on which senders are not bothering to comply. Continue reading
It’s been five years in the coming, but the new Canadian Anti-Spam Law (CASL) is nearly here at last. The new requirements go into effect July 1st, so if you haven’t made preparations for compliance yet, now’s the time to get started.
The new law applies to anyone who sends mail to recipients in Canada, and requires senders of email to have or to obtain permission from those recipients to send them marketing messages. The problem, of course, is that unless senders have been collecting geographic data about their recipients at the time they gathered permission, it’s hard to know whether any particular recipient is in Canada. Furthermore, the burden rests on the sender to prove that they had consent should any action be brought under under the law. Continue reading
Much analysis and guidance has been written about the new requirements (and significant penalties) imposed on senders of unsolicited e-mail by the Canadian Anti-Spam Law set to go into effect in the fall. What seems less thoroughly addressed to my non-lawyerly eyes is what specific liability is created by violations of CASL upon the ESP used by their clients to transmit the infringing commercial electronic message (CEM).
I put the question to Neil Schwartzman, a long-time colleague and Executive Director of CAUCE North America, one of the very earliest anti-spam advocacy groups and the primary driver of CASL through its storied journey across the Canadian legislative landscape. Neil recently left ReturnPath to start CASLconsulting.com, a firm offering expertise on CASL compliance. He and consulting legal counsel Shaun Brown of nNovation LLP respond: