The CRTC has published an enforcement decision known as VT250813-Jimmy Genesse under Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL). In this case, the CRTC determined that a party (Jimmy Genesse) violated the law by installing or causing to be installed computer programs in connection with commercial activity, without meeting the legal requirements under CASL. As a result, the CRTC imposed an administrative monetary penalty (a fine) against that party.
Under CASL, there are several key rules. Most people are familiar with the rule about sending commercial electronic messages (emails, texts, etc.), which requires consent and certain content and unsubscribe features. But CASL also has rules about computer programs and re-direction of messages: if someone wants to install software or a program that re-directs electronic messages, on another person’s computer (or cause it to be installed), they must prove they obtained express consent and provide required disclosures. The VT250813 decision deals with precisely that part of the law.
Paragraph 7(1)(a) of the Act states in part that:
7 (1) It is prohibited, in the course of a commercial activity, to alter or cause to be altered the transmission data in an electronic message so that the message is delivered to a destination other than or in addition to that specified by the sender, unless
(a) the alteration is made with the express consent of the sender or the person to whom the message is sent (…).
What makes this decision significant is how rare it is to see fines under Section 7 of CASL. Section 7 deals with altering transmission data (routing or forwarding electronic messages). Many of the publicly reported CASL enforcement actions have focused on violations of the email / messaging rules (Section 6, etc.). It is much less common to see enforcement actions, or fines, directly tied to the computer-program / transmission side of CASL. The fact that the CRTC has pursued and fined a party under Section 7 (or the related installation provisions) sends a strong message that it is willing to enforce the lesser-used provisions of CASL, not just the more common spam-email rules.
What one would expect in a Section 7 CASL violation case…
California Breaks New Ground With Record $1.35M Fine for Job Applicant Mistakes: 6-Step Action Plan for Employers
The California Privacy Protection Agency, the state’s main data privacy regulator, just an…
Schrems II Judgment Day
The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU“) issued its judgment today in …
