

Canada’s anti-spam legislation starts July 1 - willfarrell
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/28/will-you-be-in-compliance-with-canadas-new-anti-spam-legislation-come-july-1/

======
ppereira
There are significant differences between Canada's anti-spam law, CASL, and
the U.S. CAN-SPAM. Key differences include:

1\. CASL is opt-in, while CAN-SPAM is opt out;

2\. Canada has an opt-in exception for existing business relationships that
must be renewed every two years; and

3\. CASL applies not only to email but to any electronic message, including a
message sent via an installed program.

For more information, see:
[http://www.mcmillan.ca/Files/172403_Key%20Differences%20betw...](http://www.mcmillan.ca/Files/172403_Key%20Differences%20between%20US%20and%20Canadian%20Anti-
Spam%20Laws.pdf)

------
eli
I believe it only applies to messages originating from a server located in
Canada, in case anyone was wondering.

EDIT: I am indeed wrong! A non-Canadian company could hypothetically get in
trouble for violating these rules. I wouldn't expect that to happen often.

Also, thankfully, the Canadian rules seem pretty reasonable. Everyone probably
should have to get explicit (more than a prechecked box) permission before
adding you to a mailing list.

~~~
corry
No, you are 100% incorrect. CASL applies to any Commercial Email Message SENT
to Canadians - server location doesn't matter.

(Sorry for being harsh, but we need to get the correct message out there).

Source: hours spent with our lawyers going over this.

There is big liability here for US companies sending email into Canada (or
Canadian firms sending to Canadians).

------
napoleond
This law has been a giant PITA for me, only because there are a bunch of
businesses running around trying to sell "compliance" services to my clients
(who don't need them, because why would I set them up with email marketing
tools that aren't opt-in only). Truth is that CASL isn't very different from
CAN-SPAM and so anyone who was already doing email marketing in the US is
probably fine, but there seems to be a whole new cottage industry in Canada
around scaring people into paying for protection from this (more or less
completely sensible) new law.

------
CanSpice
Like most anti-spam legislation, this will both hurt legitimate businesses
trying to send email to people they've done business with in the past, as well
as do nothing to stop spam. Spammers are still going to spam. They don't care
about Canadian laws.

~~~
forgottenpass
Spam filtering is pretty good these days, I don't get much spam to my inbox
that isn't CAN-SPAM compliant. The interesting take away is that Canadians are
still getting pissed off enough at CAN-SPAM passable spam to pass new
legislation.

In other words "legitimate business" is pissing people off so much that the
state is willing to intervene.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
Not surprised at all. Most businesses these days dream up any excuse they can
to email you within the confines of the law.

Gotta maximize that traction to further synergize revenue streams.

~~~
leorocky
Because running a business and trying to contact you is _such_ a terrible
thing. Instead of adopting a self-entitled stance that I have the right to not
be disturbed and any violation is an attack on my ego driven need for
individual sovereignty, I have learned to respect and even root for the small
businesses trying to make a dollar for themselves while everyone else is busy
wasting their life away being wage slaves for giant soulless corporations. I
don't get mad, I evaluate the email if I'm interested.

~~~
forgottenpass
So you (or the people running your mailbox) don't filter spam? At all? Really?
Or do the dollar signs in your eyes shift your perspective about the handful
of spam that gets through the automated filters?

------
sbov
Seems like lead generation services are up shit creek. Glad I got out of that
long ago. Is there any way for them to legally transfer the ability to email
someone to another company?

If not, I assume users filling out the wrong country (so you can filter out
Canadians from your lists, except those who put in the wrong country) doesn't
protect you either.

~~~
homulilly
It looks like any companies who were operating ethically (opt-in) will be
fine.

------
robmclarty
These new rules seem reasonable and no different from what businesses
are/should already be doing.

Does "consent" apply to websites which add an "opt in" checkbox but check it
off by default and hope that nobody sees it?

This really irritates me and I would argue does _not_ constitute my having
given my consent to receive emails. That said, I don't see an easy way to
distinguish this kind of practice from a legitimate opt-in checkbox.

~~~
kl4m
No, consent must be explicitely request, so the checkbox must be unchecked by
default, or else it's considered merely harvesting the e-mail address.

------
dallen33
So if a user already signed up for a newsletter, via a subscribe form on a
website, does this law affect subscribers of that list?

~~~
notatoad
If the user has signed up explicitly for the purpose of receiving the
newsletter, that's an opt-in and you're fine. if you want to use that list to
send emails outside the scope of what the users initially signed up for,
you're getting into grey area.

