CASL’s (Anti-spam Law) Private Action Rights – Less Than a Year Until in Force

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.

**********

Canada’s federal anti-spam legislation (CASL) largely came into force on July 1, 2014. For the first three years, enforcement was primarily the responsibility of the CRTC (together with the Competition Bureau and Privacy Commissioner). For an overview of CASL, see: Anti-Spam (CASL).

On July 1, 2017, however, private action sections not previously in force will come into force (sections 47 to 51 and 55 of CASL). These sections will allow individuals or organizations affected by a violation of CASL to commence private damages actions. Class actions will also be possible.

Given that the coming into force date for CASL’s private action provisions is less than a year away, I thought I would write a short note about what is coming.

Brands and agencies using electronic marketing as part of their advertising campaigns are also well advised to review their level of CASL compliance generally and for specific campaigns before these new provisions come into force (see tips below).

Key Aspects of CASL’s Private Action Provisions

The private action provisions of CASL will include the following, among other things:

Jurisdiction: In general, CASL’s private right of action provisions will allow any person “affected” by a violation of CASL (or related provisions of the Competition Act or PIPEDA) to apply for orders to the Federal Court or a provincial superior court. Interestingly, unlike, for example, Competition Act private actions, CASL does not expressly require that applicants have suffered actual loss or damage (that is, while loss or damage can be pleaded, the threshold requirement for applicants is merely that they have been “affected”). The statutory damages under CASL also do not require any actual loss/injury.

Scope of claims: Claims may be brought for violations of sections 6 to 9 of CASL (unsolicited CEMs, alteration of transmission data or unauthorized installation of computer programs). Claims may also be brought for violations of section 74.011 of the Competition Act (false or misleading electronic messages) and sections 7.1(2) and (3) of PIPEDA (e-mail harvesting).

Accused: Claims may be brought against “any person” who has violated CASL by act or omission, which may include directors and officers. CASL also specifically provides for director and officer liability. Directors and officers may be liable for violating CASL if they directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in a violation of CASL regardless of whether their corporation is proceeded against.

Limitation period: CASL provides for a three-year limitation period for claims unless a court decides otherwise. Interestingly, the limitation period provision expressly provides that the time runs from when the violation became known to the applicant (i.e., provides an applicant-friendly “discoverability” limitation period).

No duplication of proceedings: CASL does not allow private actions where a person is already subject to enforcement proceedings or settlement (i.e., is not possible where a person has already been served with a notice of violation or entered into an undertaking). Given the relatively sporadic CRTC enforcement of CASL to date this may not prove much of a practical impediment for private applicants seeking recovery.

Intervention rights: CASL provides that the CRTC, Commissioner of Competition or Privacy Commissioner may intervene in private applications.

Actual and statutory damages: Following a successful application, a court may order payment of compensation for actual loss or damages. The following maximum statutory damages will also be possible: section 6: $200 for each violation up to $1 million per day; sections 7 or 8: $1 million per day; section 9: $1 million for each violation. Damages may also be recovered for those who have aided, induced or procured a violation of CASL. The legislation sets out factors for courts to consider in imposing damages. These include the scope of the violation, any prior violations and financial benefits. Proof of actual injury is not required to recover statutory damages.

********************

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

This entry was posted in Advertising Law, Anti-spam Law, Articles, Associations, Competition Bureau, Competition Law, Compliance, Consumer Protection, CRTC, Direct Sales, Do Not Call List, Electronic Marketing, Internet Advertising, New legislation, News, Online Advertising, Sectors - Broadcasting, Sectors - Internet & New Media, Sectors - Media, Sectors - Retail, Sectors - Telecommunications, Social media marketing, Targeted Advertising and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.