Getting a sales call right when you’re eating dinner can be annoying. On the other hand, like (in my view very valid) criticism of the pending anti-spam law, are telemarketing calls so troublesome that small and medium size companies should face yet more regulation?
The CRTC is looking to reduce the number of unwanted calls, but has to balance this aim against potentially harming businesses that use auto-dialing for marketing.
Yesterday, the CRTC announced that it has launched a new comprehensive review of its Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules, which include the National Do Not Call List (DNCL) rules and rules governing automatic dialing devices, or “ADADs”. The CRTC is looking for ways to strike a balance between consumers and marketing companies, and will be seeking comments from consumers, marketers (who naturally want more flexibility in who they can call and how) and other interested persons.
The CRTC is looking for input on, among other things, the existing ADAD Rules, caller name displays, record keeping, duration and scope of do not call requests and grace periods for do not call requests. The CRTC’s new proceeding also includes an application filed by the Canadian Marketing Association (CMA), which is proposing that the rules relating to the use of ADADs be relaxed:
“The Commission also seeks views on an application filed by the Canadian Marketing Association (CMA) which has been incorporated into this proceeding. The CMA has proposed to relax the rules, which restrict the use of Automatic Dialing-Announcing Devices (ADADs) for telemarketing purposes. The current rules specify that consumers must provide express consent before calls using ADADs can be made to them. The CMA has proposed eliminating this restriction where an organization has an existing business relationship with a consumer and where the consumer has not made a request to be on the internal do not call list (DNCL) maintained by the organization. Such calls would therefore be allowed even if the consumer has registered their number(s) on the National DNCL.” (emphasis added)
Interestingly, since the National DNCL came into effect in 2008, which allows consumers to register their residential, wireless, fax or VoIP telephone number to reduce the number of telemarketing calls, some 11 million numbers have been registered (in addition to numbers that may have been also placed on marketing company internal do-not-call lists, which is an additional option available to consumers).
The CRTC also reports that it has received more than 640,000 complaints relating to alleged violations of the DNCL, which have resulted in more than $3 million in administrative monetary penalties and other payments.
Against this backdrop, the CMA seeks to broaden the ability of marketers to use ADADS – which seems as though it may be something of an uphill battle.
Not surprisingly, the media has rather energetically picked up on this story over the past several days, including the HuffPost which described the CMA’s effort to loosen current ADAD calling rules: “current rules specify that consumers must provide express consent before these types of calls can be made to them… The Canadian Marketing Association is proposing eliminating this restriction where an organization has an existing business relationship with a consumer and where the consumer has not made a request to be on the internal do-not-call list maintained by the organization”.
In apparent anticipation of consumer opposition to more, rather than less, unsolicited telemarketing calls, the CMA argues that technology has changed since rules around auto-dialing were instituted in 1994, making a loosening of regulations possible. For example, the CMA argues in a CBC story:
“As an example, these features now enable consumers to press a button on their touch-tone pad to immediately connect to a live agent, have the ADAD call returned at another more convenient time, pause or repeat a message …”
Will Canadian consumers be open to loosening the current DNCL and ADAD restrictions? It remains to be seen, although there’s already pushback, with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre arguing against automated calls (see: here):
“’We’ve done surveys in the past to confirm this, but we know for a fact that people find automated calls to be extremely creepy and invasive,’ said John Lawford, the centre’s legal counsel.” He has also said that consumers “dislike them intensely”, arguing that there is “no justification for them”.
For more information on intervening and filing comments see: here.
For more on Canada’s DNCL and ADADs see: here and here.
____________________
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
