Regulatory: New Canadian anti-spam legislation will significantly impact businesses
Canada was the only G8 country without specific anti-spam legislation until the December 2010 adoption of Bill C-28 (commonly referred to as Canadas Anti-Spam Legislation or CASL).
September 05, 2012 at 09:39 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Canada was the only G8 country without specific anti-spam legislation until the December 2010 adoption of Bill C-28 (commonly referred to as Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation or CASL). CASL introduced new stringent anti-spam measures that, when they come into force, will have a significant impact on the electronic communication practices of companies operating in the Canadian marketplace.
Designed as one of the most stringent anti-spam regimes in the world, the legislation imposes significant restrictions on the use of commercial electronic messages which include not only email, but also text messages, instant messages and other messages sent from similar accounts (likely including some forms of social media messaging). Further, CASL has extremely broad reach, as the provisions regarding electronic messages apply if a computer system located in Canada is used to send or access the electronic message.
Draft regulations for CASL were published by the regulators, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and Industry Canada (IC) in the summer of 2011, and were subject to significant feedback from industry. The CRTC regulations to CASL were finalized in March 2012, but the remaining IC regulations are expected to be published in October and will be subject to a further comment period. There is currently some uncertainty as to when CASL will come into force, but it is expected to occur in 2013.
Commercial electronic messages and consent requirements
The provisions of CASL that will be most significant to a majority of businesses are those which limit and regulate commercial electronic messages (CEMs). A CEM is an electronic message that has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, encouraging participation in a commercial activity, even if there is no expectation of profit. Electronic messages include messages sent by any means of telecommunication, including text, email, audio, voice or image messages (although most voice communications will initially be excluded from the purview of CASL and will instead continue to be addressed under the current “do not call” legislation).
CASL prohibits the sending of CEMs to an electronic address unless:
- The recipient has given prior consent
- The message meets certain form and content requirements
In contrast to the “opt-out” regime under the U.S. CAN-SPAM Act, where the sender can send the message without prior consent subject to the recipient being able to “opt-out,” CASL requires active “opt-in” consent from the recipient prior to sending the CEM. Further, an electronic message requesting consent to receive further CEMs is itself a CEM and, therefore, cannot be sent without the consent of the recipient.
The opt-in consent must be express and the request for consent must meet further form and content requirements, unless one of the limited exceptions can be met. For example, consent can be implied where there is an existing business relationship (such as where a consumer has made a purchase from the sender within the past two years) or an existing non-business relationship (such as membership in a club or volunteer work) between the sender and the recipient. Consent can also be implied where the recipient has conspicuously published his or her address and has not indicated that he or she does not wish to receive unsolicited CEMs, or where the recipient has disclosed his or her address to the sender and has not indicated that he or she does not wish to receive unsolicited CEMs, provided that the CEM must be relevant to the person's business role.
There are certain limited instances in which CEMs are exempt from the requirement for consent altogether, including instances in which a business sends the CEM in response to a request for a quote, to confirm or complete an existing transaction, or to provide safety, warranty, subscription or employment information. Such messages must still meet the form and content requirements.
The form and content requirements for CEMs include information that discloses the identity of and contact information for the sender as well as an “unsubscribe” mechanism that must meet certain prescribed requirements.
Statutory penalties and private right of action
Penalties for non-compliance with the provisions of CASL are significant, including fines of up to $10 million for corporations. Officers, directors and agents may be personally liable if they acquiesced in a violation of the statutory requirements. In addition, CASL includes a private right of action, allowing individuals to commence civil actions, including class actions, in court against anyone who violates CASL.
In light of the restrictive regime the CASL establishes and the significant penalties that are available, businesses that engage in commercial practices that involve electronic messages being sent or received in Canada should review their CEM practices and keep the progress of this legislation on their radar.
Canada was the only G8 country without specific anti-spam legislation until the December 2010 adoption of Bill C-28 (commonly referred to as Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation or CASL). CASL introduced new stringent anti-spam measures that, when they come into force, will have a significant impact on the electronic communication practices of companies operating in the Canadian marketplace.
Designed as one of the most stringent anti-spam regimes in the world, the legislation imposes significant restrictions on the use of commercial electronic messages which include not only email, but also text messages, instant messages and other messages sent from similar accounts (likely including some forms of social media messaging). Further, CASL has extremely broad reach, as the provisions regarding electronic messages apply if a computer system located in Canada is used to send or access the electronic message.
Draft regulations for CASL were published by the regulators, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and Industry Canada (IC) in the summer of 2011, and were subject to significant feedback from industry. The CRTC regulations to CASL were finalized in March 2012, but the remaining IC regulations are expected to be published in October and will be subject to a further comment period. There is currently some uncertainty as to when CASL will come into force, but it is expected to occur in 2013.
Commercial electronic messages and consent requirements
The provisions of CASL that will be most significant to a majority of businesses are those which limit and regulate commercial electronic messages (CEMs). A CEM is an electronic message that has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, encouraging participation in a commercial activity, even if there is no expectation of profit. Electronic messages include messages sent by any means of telecommunication, including text, email, audio, voice or image messages (although most voice communications will initially be excluded from the purview of CASL and will instead continue to be addressed under the current “do not call” legislation).
CASL prohibits the sending of CEMs to an electronic address unless:
- The recipient has given prior consent
- The message meets certain form and content requirements
In contrast to the “opt-out” regime under the U.S. CAN-SPAM Act, where the sender can send the message without prior consent subject to the recipient being able to “opt-out,” CASL requires active “opt-in” consent from the recipient prior to sending the CEM. Further, an electronic message requesting consent to receive further CEMs is itself a CEM and, therefore, cannot be sent without the consent of the recipient.
The opt-in consent must be express and the request for consent must meet further form and content requirements, unless one of the limited exceptions can be met. For example, consent can be implied where there is an existing business relationship (such as where a consumer has made a purchase from the sender within the past two years) or an existing non-business relationship (such as membership in a club or volunteer work) between the sender and the recipient. Consent can also be implied where the recipient has conspicuously published his or her address and has not indicated that he or she does not wish to receive unsolicited CEMs, or where the recipient has disclosed his or her address to the sender and has not indicated that he or she does not wish to receive unsolicited CEMs, provided that the CEM must be relevant to the person's business role.
There are certain limited instances in which CEMs are exempt from the requirement for consent altogether, including instances in which a business sends the CEM in response to a request for a quote, to confirm or complete an existing transaction, or to provide safety, warranty, subscription or employment information. Such messages must still meet the form and content requirements.
The form and content requirements for CEMs include information that discloses the identity of and contact information for the sender as well as an “unsubscribe” mechanism that must meet certain prescribed requirements.
Statutory penalties and private right of action
Penalties for non-compliance with the provisions of CASL are significant, including fines of up to $10 million for corporations. Officers, directors and agents may be personally liable if they acquiesced in a violation of the statutory requirements. In addition, CASL includes a private right of action, allowing individuals to commence civil actions, including class actions, in court against anyone who violates CASL.
In light of the restrictive regime the CASL establishes and the significant penalties that are available, businesses that engage in commercial practices that involve electronic messages being sent or received in Canada should review their CEM practices and keep the progress of this legislation on their radar.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250