Information Technology
Feds relaunch anti-spam law
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to
impose administrative penalties of up to
$1 million per violation for individuals and
$10 million for businesses. The enforcement regime would be strengthened by
allowing the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to share information and evidence
with foreign counterparts in order to pursue violators outside Canada. The bill
would also extend the provisions of the
Competition Act concerning false and misleading marketing to electronic messages,
and restrict certain exceptions under the
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).
The bill proposes a private right of
action that would allow consumers and
businesses to sue anyone who violates
FISA. The court can order compensation
equal to the actual loss or damage suffered
or expenses incurred by the victim of the
spam. It can also award damages of $200
per violation to a maximum of $1 million
per day, for many types of contraventions.
Finally, the government intends to create a
spam reporting centre to identify and analyze online threats and raise public awareness of the issue.
The proposed legislation is meant to
“deter the most damaging and deceptive
forms of spam from occurring in Canada,
The proposed bill is similar to Bill
C-27, known as the Electronic Commerce
Protection Act, which was passed unani-
See Spam Page 10
t o r i t he
t, u l
e
r
e
e
n r
crea c
t r
ARNOLD CEBALLOS
DESK BY IMAGERY MAJESTIC / DREAMSTIME.COM, COMPUTER BY PABLO EDER / DREAMSTIME.COM
After some tweaking, the federal government recently reintroduced legislation
aimed at tackling the growing problem of
spam e-mail.
Bill C-28, also known as the Fighting
Internet and Wireless Spam Act (FISA),
would prohibit sending unsolicited com-
mercial electronic messages, including
e-mails and text messages, unless there
was an express or implied consent from
the recipient. Consent would not be
required in certain instances, such as
where the purpose is to provide a quote or
estimate, or to facilitate, complete or con-
firm an existing commercial transaction.
Consent could also be implied in certain
cases, such as where senders have an
existing business relationship with the
recipient, or where recipients have pro-
vided their addresses to the sender with-
out indicating that they did not wish to
receive unsolicited communications. FISA
would also require senders of electronic
messages to identify themselves, provide
contact information and include an
“unsubscribe” procedure.
