Previous Page  52 / 110 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 52 / 110 Next Page
Page Background

50 •

PPB

• MAY 2016

GROW

MARKET

ING

Do you use email, SMS,

social media or instant messag-

ing to send commercial or pro-

motional information about your

organization to customers,

prospects and other important

audiences? Do you install soft-

ware programs on people’s com-

puters or mobile devices? Do

you carry out these activities in

or from Canada?

If you answered “yes” to any

of these questions, CASL will

likely affect you. (If you answered

“I don’t know,” consider looking

at your communications opera-

tions. If you answered “No” to all,

well, consider this writer

impressed with your ability to

survive off-the-grid.)

CASL became mainly effec-

tive July 1, 2014; some portions

became effective July 15, 2015.

In just a little more than a year,

on July 1, 2017, a private right of

action will be available to

address violations of CASL.

CASL violators may face sub-

stantial penalties, including

criminal and civil charges and

personal liability. Individual rep-

resentatives of an organization

that commits a violation may be

liable for the violation if the rep-

resentative directed, authorized,

assented to, acquiesced in or par-

ticipated in the commission of

the violation.

For these and other reasons,

CASL should be taken seriously,

especially by companies whose

commercial footprint crosses

within, from or into Canada.

To address CASL, PPAI

and its Canadian affiliate,

Promotional Product

Professionals of Canada (PPPC)

are working together to share a

Conquering Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation

By Cory Halliburton

E-Message Rules

Mean Business

“HAVE FUN STORMING THE CASTLE,” said Miracle Max (played

by Billy Crystal) in the classic film,

The Princess Bride

. Likely, Miracle Max

would not be so jovial when referring to CASL—Canada’s Anti-Spam

Legislation.

Indeed, CASL is a challenging and recently effective anti-spam legal regime.

At its core, CASL is intended to protect Canadians from receiving, without

effective consent, commercial electronic messages (CEMs) while also allowing a

global marketplace perspective for commercial enterprise. Certainly, this is a del-

icate balance of interests.