CANADIAN CASL (ANTI-SPAM LAW) PRECEDENTS
Do you need a precedent or checklist
to comply with CASL (Canadian anti-spam law)?
We offer Canadian anti-spam law (CASL) precedents and checklists to help electronic marketers comply with CASL. These include checklists and precedents for express consent requests (including on behalf of third parties), sender identification information, unsubscribe mechanisms, business related exemptions and types of implied consent and documenting consent and scrubbing distribution lists. We also offer a CASL corporate compliance program. For more information or to order, see: Anti-Spam (CASL) Precedents/Forms. If you would like to discuss CASL legal advice or for other advertising or marketing in Canada, including contests/sweepstakes, contact us: contact.
**********
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which is one of three Canadian agencies responsible for enforcing Canada’s federal anti-spam legislation (CASL), has begun issuing periodic summaries of its enforcement activities.
In its most recent update on June 17, 2019, the CRTC issued an update on enforcement steps for the six-month period from October 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019 (see: Enforcing Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL)).
Several key highlights from the CRTC’s recent CASL spam related enforcement efforts include:
Settlements: The CRTC negotiated an undertaking with Blacklock’s Reporter in relation to complaints received by the Spam Reporting Centre. Under the terms of the undertaking, Blacklock’s Reporter agreed to implement a compliance program, which will include technical tools and training for its personnel to comply with CASL.
Aiding CASL violations: The CRTC issued a new Information Bulletin recently that sets out its approach to section 9 of CASL, under which it is prohibited to, among other things, “aid, induce, procure or cause to be procured” a violation of the unsolicited CEMs section (section 6). In this regard, it is important for electronic marketers to note that CASL not only prohibits senders of unsolicited electronic communications, but also imposes potential liability on those that aid sending unsolicited messages that violate CASL (as such, there is potential liability for agencies, consultants and others that assist sending CEMs that do not comply with CASL).
Enforcement: The CRTC summarized its recent enforcement measures, which in this six-month period included 43 warning letters, 1 executed warrant, 1 preservation demand and 57 notices to produce. According to the CRTC, it has also launched a new “pilot program” to initially warn companies violating CASL, which will be followed by “additional measures” if required to ensure CASL compliance. Such warning letters were recently sent to “34 prominent players in the Web hosting industry to reinforce” compliance.
Administrative monetary penalties: Since CASL came into force in 2014, penalties of more than $1.75 million have been imposed. Importantly, the CRTC has been regularly commencing enforcement since CASL was first introduced, including through a range of measures from mere warnings to the imposition of AMPs to more intrusive means such as searches.
Canadian spam related complaints: In this six-month period, the CRTC reports that the federal Spam Reporting Centre received more than 140,000 complaints (about 5,200 per week). Electronic marketers should note that it is relatively easy to file complaints to the CRTC, including using an online form or by e-mail. This increases the potential risk of running electronic marketing campaigns that are not CASL compliant.
Primary spam technology: Interestingly, the CRTC has reported that e-mail is currently the “#1 source of spam”, though text message spam continues to rise. In this regard, CASL is technologically neutral, in that while any unsolicited CEM sent to an electronic in-box can be caught, the majority of the enforcement and compliance focus has tended to be on e-mail (and not, for example, on text messages or communications over social media platforms – which remains a potential risk area, as well as an area of uncertainty in terms of the CRTC’s enforcement approach).
Key triggers for complaints: According to the CRTC, lack of consent is the primary reason triggering CASL / spam complaints. In this regard, CASL includes both an express consent regime, as well as a number of technical categories of implied consent. Having said that, the CRTC has commenced enforcement against electronic marketers over the past few years for not only failing to comply with CASL’s consent requirements, but also other key requirements including the unsubscribe and identification requirements of CASL. The CRTC has also been increasingly recommending that electronic marketers also implement compliance programs and document consent (e.g., how consent was obtained, complying with un-subscribe requests, etc.).
********************
Tips For Complying With
CASL (Canadian Anti-Spam Law)
Canada’s federal anti-spam legislation (CASL) came into force in 2014. Since then, electronic marketers and their advisors have been working to comply with what remains a complex law with outstanding uncertainties in some key areas. Having said that, many of the core requirements of CASL are not overly difficult to comply with (though continue to be misunderstood in many cases).
The following are some key legal tips for complying with CASL:
Express Consent. If you cannot rely on any category of implied consent (e.g., an existing business relationship within two years of a purchase) or a CASL exemption, ensure that you have collected and documented express consent from recipients. Express consent requests must include all of the information set out in CASL and its regulations otherwise the consent will not be valid. Failure to correctly collect consent is the most common CASL compliance error we see and a key basis for CRTC enforcement. For more information, see: Anti-Spam Law (CASL), Anti-Spam Law (CASL) FAQs and Canadian Anti-Spam (CASL) Precedents.
Implied Consent. If you are relying on one or more categories of implied consent to send commercial electronic messages (CEMs) (e.g., an existing business relationship within two years of a purchase or six months of a product inquiry) ensure that all of the requirements of the particular type of implied consent are met. Remember that there is not a single blanket type of implied consent under CASL; rather, there are many different types of implied consent each with their own specific requirements. Also, as with express consent, CEMs that rely on implied consent must still include the prescribed sender identification information and unsubscribe mechanism. For more information, see: Anti-Spam Law (CASL), Anti-Spam Law (CASL) FAQs and Canadian Anti-Spam (CASL) Precedents.
Consent For Third Parties To Send CEMs. Under CASL, consent to send CEMs can be requested for a sender themselves, identified third parties (or multiple identified third parties) or unidentified third parties (i.e., entities whose identities are not yet known when consent is requested). Importantly, however, each type of consent request has specific requirements for the request and, in the case of consent requests on behalf of unidentified third parties, somewhat complex additional requirements. The failure of marketers to correctly request consent for third parties (e.g., partners, affiliates, co-sponsors in promotions, etc.) is another CASL-related error that we regularly see. For more information, see: Anti-Spam Law (CASL) FAQs and Canadian Anti-Spam (CASL) Precedents.
CASL Exemptions. Similar to implied consent, there is no single exemption from CASL but many types of exemptions. If you are relying on a particular exemption (e.g., the “business-to-business” exemption) it is important to ensure that all of the requirements of the exemption are met. Importantly, there is little or no case law interpreting many CASL exemptions. This means that there there may be more risk when relying on an exemption than express consent. Express consent is the strongest type of consent under CASL, considering that it does not expire unless a recipient unsubscribes.
Passive Consents. Remember that under CASL express consent or a category of implied consent is generally required to send CEMs unless a CASL exemption applies. As such, passive types of consents (e.g., language in general terms and conditions) will likely not be CASL compliant unless a sender does not need express consent (i.e., can rely on a category of implied consent or a CASL exemption).
Sharing Lists With Third Parties. Consider the potential risks of sharing e-mail or other electronic marketing lists with third parties. While this is certainly possible under CASL, marketers should be aware that there are specific requirements that must be met depending on who a list will be shared with (e.g., to expressly identify third parties with whom consent is being gathered on behalf of, including their contact information and other requirements for unidentified third parties). Marketers should also be aware that there is also potentially not only risk if they themselves violate CASL (e.g., send CEMs without consent), but also if they assist third parties that violate CASL. As such, it is often prudent for marketers that want to share electronic marketing lists with third parties to ensure that they have list sharing agreements in place with parties with whom they share e-mails. For more information, see: Anti-Spam Law (CASL) FAQs, Anti-Spam (CASL) Compliance Errors and Canadian Anti-Spam (CASL) Precedents. See also: Influencer, Co-Sponsor and List Sharing Agreements.
Sender Identification Information. Ensure that all CEMs include the prescribed sender identification information required by CASL unless an exemption applies. For more information, see: Anti-Spam Law (CASL) and Anti-Spam Law (CASL) FAQs.
Unsubscribe Mechanism. Ensure that all CEMs include a CASL-compliant unsubscribe mechanism. For more information, see: Anti-Spam Law (CASL) and Anti-Spam Law (CASL) FAQs.
Document Consent. Under CASL, the onus is on senders of CEMs to document consent. As such, it is important to document the type of consent (express or implied) or exemption being relied upon, evidence of consent (e.g., subscription logs, forms, dates and names/e-mail addresses), divide lists according to the type of consent or exemption being relied upon and to scrub lists after recipients have unsubscribed or the relevant time period for a category of implied consent has expired (e.g., two years after a purchase). Failure to adequately document consent is another CASL-related compliance error that we regularly see, including not documenting consent at all, not segregating distribution lists and inadequately documenting consents or types of implied consent. For more information, see: Anti-Spam Law (CASL), Anti-Spam Law (CASL) Compliance and Canadian Anti-Spam (CASL) Precedents.
CASL Compliance Program. Consider adopting a CASL compliance program, particularly if electronic marketing is a core aspect of your marketing strategy. The CRTC has issued guidance on CASL compliance programs including key recommended elements. For more information, see: Anti-Spam (CASL) Compliance and Canadian Anti-Spam (CASL) Precedents.
CASL and Specific Types of Promotions. Care should be taken in relation to specific types of promotions under CASL. Just one of many examples is friends and family type promotions (e.g., contests where entrants can gain more entries by sharing with or tagging a friend or family member). While there is an exception to the unsolicited CEMs section of CASL (section 6) for messages sent to a person with whom the sender has a personal or family relationship, these terms are narrowly defined. For example, “family relationship” is limited to spouses, common-law partners and parent-child relationships. “Personal relationship” is defined in a multi-factor and case-by-case fashion such that it is often impractical to rely on this exception for any broad “friends and family” type promotion. Marketers should also be aware that there is potential risk for both themselves and their clients in running friends and family type promotions if they cannot meet the specific definitions of “family relationship” and/or “personal relationship” under CASL for a promotion. For more information, see: Anti-Spam (CASL) Compliance Errors and Running a Friends-and-Family Promotion in Canada? Cruel, Cryptic CASL Strikes Again.
____________________
SERVICES AND CONTACT
I am a Toronto competition/antitrust lawyer and advertising/marketing lawyer who helps clients in Toronto, Canada and the US practically navigate Canada’s advertising and marketing laws and offers Canadian advertising/marketing law services in relation to print, online, new media, social media and e-mail marketing.
My Canadian advertising/marketing law services include advice in relation to: anti-spam legislation (CASL); Competition Bureau complaints; the general misleading advertising provisions of the federal Competition Act; Internet, new media and social media advertising and marketing; promotional contests (sweepstakes); and sales and promotions. I also provide advice relating to specific types of advertising issues, including performance claims, testimonials, disclaimers, drip pricing, astroturfing and native advertising.
For more information about my services see: services
To contact me about a potential legal matter see: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow me on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
