Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) generally prohibits:
Aiding, inducing, procuring or causing to be procured any of these activities is also an offence under CASL.
The contents of this site will focus primarily on the first prohibition, namely the anti-spam provisions under CASL.
CASL generally prohibits a person from sending a commercial electronic message (CEM) to an electronic address without the consent of the recipient. CASL also prohibits sending a CEM where certain required formalities are not included in the message, including an unsubscribe mechanism.
CASL and its regulations provide for numerous exceptions to the foregoing, including exceptions to consent in certain scenarios, and general exceptions based on the content of the CEM or the relationship of the sender and receiver. Senders may also be relieved of the requirement to meet the formalities where compliance is impractical.
Consent can be either express or implied.
It should be noted that an electronic message seeking consent may constitute a CEM for the purposes of CASL, and may not be sent without the recipient’s consent once this legislation is in force.
Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) generally prohibits sending commercial electronic messages (CEMs) to an electronic address without consent.
There are two types of consent: express and implied. The following will briefly discuss both. When reviewing same, please note that a person who alleges that they have consent to send a CEM has the onus of proving it. As such, it will be particularly important to ensure that any consents that are obtained and relied upon are recorded in a manner that can readily be retrieved.
Express consent is the gold standard under CASL as it permits the sending of CEMs for the purposes for which the consent was obtained indefinitely (i.e., until such consent is revoked or modified).
It can be obtained either orally or in writing from a recipient. In its non-binding guidelines, the CRTC has indicated that a person giving express consent must take some positive action to do so (e.g., checking a box). The CRTC has further indicated that express consent can neither be bundled into the terms and conditions attached to a product or service, nor be a condition of sale. In other words, express consent must be sought separately.
Certain informational requirements and formalities must also be met in CEMs that are sent even with express consent.
Finally, organizations that wish to rely upon express consent should consider whether the following open issues apply to them.
Many large international organizations are composed of numerous sub-entities, including corporations, joint ventures, and trusts. A large organization that wishes to comply with CASL will need to decide which of its entities (or if each of them) will acquire and own its consents under CASL. That decision has consequences in terms of regulatory investigations for non-compliance. It also has consequences with respect to the content such organizations will be required to include in their communications. If your organization is composed of numerous sub-entities, you should determine which of those entities will own your CEM consents before you attempt to collect them. We anticipate that ownership of consents will be one of the first questions under CASL that every large organization will need to answer.
Consent under CASL is not necessarily one-dimensional. While many organizations will be able to comply with CASL by treating consent as an "all-or-nothing" question, the legislation provides for a potential multiplicity of consents given by a wide variety of actors. Class-based consents allow an organization to tailor the specific communications any person receives, and permits a person to unsubscribe to certain communications without revoking consent to all communications.
Collecting express consent from thousands of individuals, or more, may prove to be impractical for many large organizations. Even if an organization has the resources to accurately record and monitor express consent for many different individuals, the cost and inconvenience of collecting such consents may render compliance difficult. Businesses may find helpful the potential availability of organization-level consents, which appear to allow an organization to consent on behalf of its employees. Under CASL, a "person" (e.g., a corporation, partnership, or organization) can give a valid consent in respect of electronic addresses it controls. Accordingly, as many large organizations control their domain names, CASL appears to permit such organizations to give consent in respect of the electronic addresses associated with those domain names. Inter-organizational grants of such consent may permit senders to readily collect and record consent on behalf of organizations, reducing the practical compliance burden.
“Implied consent” may be implied by virtue of any number of different scenarios stated in CASL, including the sender and recipient having:
Consent can also be implied by virtue of the transitional provisions under CASL.
Implied consent, unlike express consent, is not indefinite. In most cases, implied consent only permits communication using CEMs for two years from the situation giving rise to the applicable relationship. As such, it will be critical to develop a means to track the currency of all relationships upon which any implied consent is based.
It is also important to note that certain informational requirements and formalities must also be met in CEMs that are sent with implied consent.
"Existing business relationship" is defined by CASL as follows:
A business relationship between the person to whom the message is sent and any other persons referred to in that subsection – that is, any person who sent or caused or permitted to be sent the message – arising from
(a) the purchase or lease of a product, goods, a service, land or an interest or right in land, within the two-year period immediately before the day on which the message was sent, by the person to whom the message is sent from any of those other persons;
(b) the acceptance by the person to whom the message is sent, within the period referred to in paragraph (a), of a business, investment, or gaming opportunity offered by any other those other persons;
(c) the bartering of anything mentioned in paragraph (a) between the person to whom the message is sent and any of those other persons within the period referred to in that paragraph;
(d) a written contract entered into between the person to whom the message is sent and any of those other persons in respect of a matter not referred to in any of the paragraphs (a) to (c), if the contract is currently in existence or expired within the period referred to in paragraph (a); or
(e) an inquiry or application, within the six-month period immediately before the day on which the message was sent, made by the person to whom the message is sent to any of those persons, in respect of anything mentioned in any paragraphs (a) to (c).
Since "existing business relationship" is specifically defined by CASL, an organization should carefully assess whether it can rely upon same.
"Existing non-business relationship" is defined by CASL as follows:
a non-business relationship between the person to whom the message is sent and any of the other persons referred to in that subsection — that is, any person who sent or caused or permitted to be sent the message — arising from
(a) a donation or gift made by the person to whom the message is sent to any of those other persons within the two-year period immediately before the day on which the message was sent, where that other person is a registered charity, a political party or organization, or a person who is a candidate — as defined in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province — for publicly elected office;
(b) volunteer work performed by the person to whom the message is sent for any of those other persons, or attendance at a meeting organized by that other person, within the two-year period immediately before the day on which the message was sent, where that other person is a registered charity, a political party or organization or a person who is a candidate — as defined in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province — for publicly elected office; or
(c) membership, as defined in the regulations, by the person to whom the message is sent, in any of those other persons, within the two-year period immediately before the day on which the message was sent, where that other person is a club, association or voluntary organization, as defined in the regulations.
One of the regulations under CASL defines a membership, club, association and voluntary organization as follows:
(a) membership is the status of having been accepted as a member of a club, association or voluntary organization in accordance with the membership requirements of the club, association or organization; and
(b) a club, association or voluntary organization is a non-profit organization that is organized and operated exclusively for social welfare, civic improvement, pleasure or recreation or for any purpose other than profit, if no part of its income is payable to, or otherwise available for the personal benefit of any proprietor, member or shareholder of that organization unless the proprietor, member or shareholder is an organization the primary purpose of which is the promotion of amateur athletics in Canada.
Since "existing non-business relationship" is specifically defined by CASL, an organization should carefully assess whether it can rely upon same.
CASL provides transitional provisions that permit a certain amount of time for organizations to become compliant.
Under CASL, a person’s consent to receiving commercial electronic messages from another person is implied until the person gives notification that they no longer consent to receiving such messages or until July 1, 2017, whichever is earlier, if:
(a) those persons have an “existing business relationship” or an “existing non-business relationship” on July 1, 2014; and
(b) the relationship includes the communication between them of commercial electronic messages.
Under CASL's regulations, the first CEM sent following a referral will be exempt from the consent requirements where:
For example, if a person has dealings with a local mechanic, and wishes to refer their father to the mechanic, the mechanic can send one CEM exempt from the consent requirement to that individual’s father following the referral.
Because this exemption provides for only a single CEM exempt from the consent requirement, anyone relying on it should ensure that a request for consent is included in the initial communication.
The aforementioned requirements also do not apply to CEMs that are:
Furthermore, the applicable sections of CASL do not apply to CEMs:
It is important to note that other exemptions are provided under CASL which may be applicable depending upon the circumstances.
As discussed above, consent is generally required in order to send a CEM. This requirement, however, does not apply to CEMs that:
Under CASL’s regulations, all CEMs sent with either express or implied consent or exempted from the consent requirement must contain:
(a) the name by which the person sending the message carries on business, if different from their name, if not, the name of the person;
(b) if the message is sent on behalf of another person, the name by which the person on whose behalf the message is sent carries on business, if different from their name, if not, the name of the person on whose behalf the message is sent;
(c) if the message is sent on behalf of another person, a statement indicating which person is sending the message and which person on whose behalf the message is sent; and
(d) the mailing address, and either
a telephone number providing access to an agent or a voice messaging system,
an email address, or
a web address
of the person sending the message or, if different, the person on whose behalf the message is sent.
CASL’s regulations require that a CEM:
(a) contains an unsubscribe mechanism which must be set out clearly and prominently; and
(b) any such unsubscribe mechanism must be able to be readily performed.
If it is not practicable to include the prescribed information (as described above), and the unsubscribe mechanism in a CEM, such particulars may be posted on a page on the World Wide Web that is readily accessible by the person to whom the message is sent, at no cost to them, by means of a link that is clearly and prominently set out in the CEMs.
CAN-SPAM applies only to e-mail messages. Accordingly, most organizations that have implemented CAN-SPAM compliance plans have only been required to consider the application of the legislation to their e-mail communications. CASL, however, applies to any CEM sent to an "electronic address", which includes e-mail communications, but also includes a telephone number, instant messaging account, or any other similar address. While courts have not yet set limits on the types of accounts to which CASL applies, we anticipate that the broad nature of the legislation will lead to an inclusive interpretation. Social networking user IDs may fall within the scope of the term.
CAN-SPAM establishes an "opt-out" consent regime, under which a person may send another person commercial electronic mail messages until the recipient revokes consent. Under CASL, however, a person who sends a CEM must in most cases have the prior consent of the recipient. In other words, CASL establishes an "opt-in" consent regime.
In certain situations, CASL provides that the consent of a recipient may be implied. In other situations, a CEM may be exempted from the consent requirement, or from the application of CASL altogether. However, given that implied consent is limited in duration to two years in many cases, we anticipate that many organizations may wish to collect express consent of recipients to limit potential liability.
Organizations should be aware that they likely cannot rely on implied consent where a Canadian recipient has revoked consent using an existing unsubscribe mechanism, even if that mechanism was not implemented in anticipation of CASL. Furthermore, express consent acquired under CAN-SPAM after July 1, 2014, is likely invalid under CASL, which requires requests for consent to meet certain standards. For example, the CRTC has indicated that a request for consent cannot be a condition for the supply of goods or services. Valid requests for consent should require a user to positively and explicitly express their consent (e.g., typing an e-mail address into a field to indicate consent). Finally, in most circumstances a request for consent itself will constitute a CEM, and as such cannot be transmitted by way of an electronic message without the consent of the recipient.
While transitional provisions will give organizations some time to gather consent from existing contacts, most organizations should implement compliance plans before the legislation comes into force.
CAN-SPAM requires a person who sends a commercial electronic mail message to include certain content in that message, including a statement that the message is an advertisement, a clear and conspicuous unsubscribe mechanism, and a valid business or post-office box address. CASL imposes similar, but more onerous requirements. In particular, it requires the sender to disclose information identifying itself and any person on whose behalf it is acting. Further disclosures are also necessary in other specified situations. For example, where a third party refers the contact information of a recipient to the sender, CASL requires the sender to disclose the name of the referring third party.
Individuals can complain about violations of CASL to the SPAM Reporting Center on the CRTC's fightspam.gc.ca website. The CRTC investigates such complaints through their enforcement team. In determining whether to take enforcement action, the CRTC considers the seriousness and impact of the violation, any history of non-compliance, and the efforts taken to prevent a violation.
As will be discussed in further detail below, a person can incur liability under CASL pursuant to either the administrative monetary penalty provisions or the private right of action provisions. An organization may be liable for a violation committed by an employee acting within the scope of their employment. In addition, an officer, director, or agent of a corporation that commits a violation may be personally liable for the violation if they directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the violation.
Given that the penalty for a violation can be severe, it is essential for organizations to develop and employ prudent compliance programs to seek to mitigate these risks.
Enforcement of CASL is based on the specific circumstances of each case. The maximum administrative monetary penalty for a violation of CASL is $10,000,000 for a corporation and $1,000,000 for an individual.
In addition to the administrative monetary penalties outlined above, CASL will also create a private right of action for violations of certain provisions. This right of action comes into force on July 1, 2017. Individuals as well as organizations will be permitted to bring an action against any party for a violation of CASL. Remedies under the private right of action can include compensation up to an amount equal to the actual loss or damages suffered (plus expenses), as well as up to $200.00 statutory damages for each violation of the legislation to a maximum of $1,000,000 for each day the violation occurred. We anticipate that some plaintiffs will organize class actions under these provisions, potentially targeted at businesses.
Due diligence is a defense to a violation under CASL – accordingly, an organization's evidence of compliance procedures and related documentation will be of great importance in determining the risk of liability, if any.
Organizations that send CEMs should ensure that they have reviewed their existing practices, identified high-risk practices, and have adopted a CASL compliance policy. The CRTC has issued an informational bulletin outlining guidelines to develop corporate compliance programs (see the CRTC's Compliance and Enforcement Information Bulletin CRTC 2014-326).
In our experience, the needs of each organization are fact specific and can vary.
The first investigation under CASL was concluded on October 7, 2014, and resulted in no fine for the offender (see CRTC Concludes First Enforcement Under Canada’s New Anti-Spam Legislation on the Bennett Jones Thought Network).
As of November 10, 2014, the CRTC has received over 167,000 complaints through the SPAM Reporting Center, and a number of investigations are currently underway by the CRTC enforcement team. There is limited information regarding the seriousness of the complaints submitted to the CRTC, the investigation process regarding these complaints and the status of any current complaints.
Given the significant impact of Canada's Anti-Spam Law (CASL) and the scope of its liability, it would be prudent for businesses to be proactive in their approach to compliance with this legislation. To that end, the following strategies should be considered:
CASL means Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation or technically An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 2010, c. 23.
Commercial electronic message (or CEM) is generally defined to mean an electronic message that, having regard to its content, encourages participation in a commercial activity, namely any transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that is of a commercial character, regardless of whether there is an expectation of profit. CEMs include an electronic message that:
Electronic address is generally defined to mean an address used in connection with the transmission of an electronic message to an e-mail account, instant messaging (e.g., SMS) account, or any other similar account.
Electronic message is generally defined to mean a message sent by any means of telecommunication, including a text, sound, voice or image message.
Express consent can either be written or oral consent. Any request to obtain consent from a person must set out clearly and simply the purpose or purposes for which the consent is being sought together with all of the formalities prescribed in CASL.
Implied consent means the consent that may be implied by virtue of any number of different scenarios stated in CASL, including the sender and recipient having an “existing business relationship” or an “existing non-business relationship”.
Formalities means the content that must be included in a CEM in order to comply with CASL, including informational content and an Unsubscribe mechanism.
Unsubscribe Mechanism is a method that allows a recipient of a CEM to indicate the wish to no longer receive any further CEMs from the sender.
If you require any assistance in doing so, or wish to learn more about how CASL may apply to you, please contact a lawyer at Bennett Jones LLP.
Details on our CASL initiative may be found on our Anti-Spam Law practice page.
With the legislation in force since July 1, 2014, registered charities should have implemented their compliance plans.
Steps that such organizations should pursue to begin to implement their compliance strategies, if they haven't done so already, are set out at Complying with the Anti-Spam Law.