Canada’s anti-spam legislation starts July 1

Canada’s anti-spam legislation starts July 1(business.financialpost.com)

58 points by willfarrell 11 years ago | 23 comments

ppereira 11 years ago |

There are significant differences between Canada's anti-spam law, CASL, and the U.S. CAN-SPAM. Key differences include:

1. CASL is opt-in, while CAN-SPAM is opt out;

2. Canada has an opt-in exception for existing business relationships that must be renewed every two years; and

3. CASL applies not only to email but to any electronic message, including a message sent via an installed program.

For more information, see: http://www.mcmillan.ca/Files/172403_Key%20Differences%20betw...

eli 11 years ago |

I believe it only applies to messages originating from a server located in Canada, in case anyone was wondering.

EDIT: I am indeed wrong! A non-Canadian company could hypothetically get in trouble for violating these rules. I wouldn't expect that to happen often.

Also, thankfully, the Canadian rules seem pretty reasonable. Everyone probably should have to get explicit (more than a prechecked box) permission before adding you to a mailing list.

corry 11 years ago | |

No, you are 100% incorrect. CASL applies to any Commercial Email Message SENT to Canadians - server location doesn't matter.

(Sorry for being harsh, but we need to get the correct message out there).

Source: hours spent with our lawyers going over this.

There is big liability here for US companies sending email into Canada (or Canadian firms sending to Canadians).

axiak 11 years ago | |

CASL applies to any electronic message either sent from or accessed in Canada [1].

1: http://www.canadianadvertisinglaw.com/anti-spam-law/

schtev 11 years ago | | |

Saying CASL applies to any message accessed in Canada is meaningless. Canadian law can't be applied to foreign entities. Reminds me of what happened with the national do-not-call list.

napoleond 11 years ago |

This law has been a giant PITA for me, only because there are a bunch of businesses running around trying to sell "compliance" services to my clients (who don't need them, because why would I set them up with email marketing tools that aren't opt-in only). Truth is that CASL isn't very different from CAN-SPAM and so anyone who was already doing email marketing in the US is probably fine, but there seems to be a whole new cottage industry in Canada around scaring people into paying for protection from this (more or less completely sensible) new law.

CanSpice 11 years ago |

Like most anti-spam legislation, this will both hurt legitimate businesses trying to send email to people they've done business with in the past, as well as do nothing to stop spam. Spammers are still going to spam. They don't care about Canadian laws.

forgottenpass 11 years ago | |

Spam filtering is pretty good these days, I don't get much spam to my inbox that isn't CAN-SPAM compliant. The interesting take away is that Canadians are still getting pissed off enough at CAN-SPAM passable spam to pass new legislation.

In other words "legitimate business" is pissing people off so much that the state is willing to intervene.

mattgreenrocks 11 years ago | | |

Not surprised at all. Most businesses these days dream up any excuse they can to email you within the confines of the law.

Gotta maximize that traction to further synergize revenue streams.

mc3ander 11 years ago | | |

We're also getting pissed off enough at Canadian companies who don't have to follow CAN-SPAM.

redthrowaway 11 years ago | |

I can tell you our lawyer is looking at this very carefully and making sure we're in compliance. That entails going through our mailing lists and scrubbing anyone who was opt-out, which I've always felt was a shitty and shady practice. It won't hurt us much, and it will make Canadian businesses treat our customers better.

na85 11 years ago | |

Plenty of "legit" businesses rely on marketing emails. If users don't want them, those emails are by definition spam.

If your business needs to send me emails to stay solvent, maybe you should re-think your business model because the overwhelming majority of internet users don't want to be part of your fucking "sales funnel". The standard response is that the user actually does want your product, they just don't know it yet. Which is of course a complete load of bullshit.

sbov 11 years ago |

Seems like lead generation services are up shit creek. Glad I got out of that long ago. Is there any way for them to legally transfer the ability to email someone to another company?

If not, I assume users filling out the wrong country (so you can filter out Canadians from your lists, except those who put in the wrong country) doesn't protect you either.

homulilly 11 years ago | |

It looks like any companies who were operating ethically (opt-in) will be fine.

robmclarty 11 years ago |

These new rules seem reasonable and no different from what businesses are/should already be doing.

Does "consent" apply to websites which add an "opt in" checkbox but check it off by default and hope that nobody sees it?

This really irritates me and I would argue does not constitute my having given my consent to receive emails. That said, I don't see an easy way to distinguish this kind of practice from a legitimate opt-in checkbox.

kl4m 11 years ago | |

No, consent must be explicitely request, so the checkbox must be unchecked by default, or else it's considered merely harvesting the e-mail address.

dallen33 11 years ago |

So if a user already signed up for a newsletter, via a subscribe form on a website, does this law affect subscribers of that list?

notatoad 11 years ago | |

If the user has signed up explicitly for the purpose of receiving the newsletter, that's an opt-in and you're fine. if you want to use that list to send emails outside the scope of what the users initially signed up for, you're getting into grey area.

kl4m 11 years ago | |

There is a (3 years?) grace period where businesses with "existing relationships" can request consent to become compliant.