Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010: Effective Date

Read a random definition: liquid debt

A quick definition of Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010: Effective Date:

The Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010 is a law that aims to prevent unwanted electronic messages, such as spam emails and texts, from being sent to Canadians. The law was introduced in 2010, but most of its provisions came into effect in 2014. Some provisions will come into effect in 2017. The law applies to individuals and organizations that send electronic messages for commercial purposes, and requires them to obtain consent from recipients before sending such messages. Failure to comply with the law can result in significant penalties.

A more thorough explanation:

The Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010 is a law that aims to protect Canadians from unwanted spam emails, texts, and other electronic messages. It was passed in 2010, but its provisions were implemented in stages.

On April 1, 2011, some changes to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) were made by the Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010. These changes were related to the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information.

Most of the remaining provisions of the law came into effect in 2014. These provisions included rules about sending commercial electronic messages, installing computer programs, and collecting electronic addresses. For example, the law requires that businesses obtain consent from individuals before sending them commercial emails or texts.

Some provisions of the law will come into effect in 2017. These provisions relate to the private right of action, which allows individuals to sue businesses that violate the law.

Overall, the Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010 is designed to protect Canadians from unwanted electronic messages and to promote responsible online behavior.

  • A business sends an email to a customer without obtaining their consent first. This is a violation of the Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010.
  • A company installs a computer program on a customer's computer without their knowledge or consent. This is also a violation of the law.
  • An individual receives a text message from a business offering a discount on their products. The message includes an option to unsubscribe from future messages. This is an example of a business following the rules of the Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010.

These examples illustrate how the Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010 regulates the sending of electronic messages and the installation of computer programs. The law requires businesses to obtain consent from individuals before sending them commercial messages or installing programs on their devices. It also gives individuals the right to opt out of receiving future messages.

Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010: Core Requirements | Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010: Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations (CRTC)

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
@texaslawhopefully: i dont disagree with those statements. I just think we have a lot to learn going into next election
texaslawhopefully
18:41
I mean my hope is the GOP gets wiped out in the midterms and has to recentralize its message
Dkk
18:41
I would say Texas is pretty nice here. I do think you got the right idea there though @impartialLion and maybe people can apply that to the broader context of why when someone just starts mischaracterizing me as a racist, homophobic, fatphobic, ableist for multiple days, I might just give up and start cussing at em lol. I mean, if someone did that to me in a bar I would get violent and I have been violent in the past with people. Being in bar fights is like an awesome experience and everyone should do it at least once.
Dkk
18:42
I try not to be violent these days cus every time I do assault someone or shove glass in someones face I clould go to jail but usually people are cool about it.
atwatodbit
18:42
hey guys this is a law school admissions website
ResponsibleCan1196
18:43
why are we YAPPING
Dkk
18:43
@texaslawhopefully: Yeah, I mean it could happen to the senate and house like it did to Obama but if he keeps his overall approval rating up, even if someone does not like individual policies it's compromise: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-approval-ratings-break-records-democrats-back-him-2018900
18:43
@atwat @can run along kids and go play with your toys. the adults are talking now.
i think this cycle is so slow that we have nothing better to do than tap
*yap my b
texaslawhopefully
18:45
@Dkk: Fair. My guess is (if the DNC is smart) dems change there messaging to be more appealing to moderates, they start winning and they hopefully that encourages republicans to move back to the center.
Dkk
18:47
Yeah, exactly.
18:47
i for one STILL cannot believe donnie is prez. like gobsmacked. how did that happen? was it getting gunned down that sealed the deal?
Im starting to worry that I wont hear back from some schools before deposit deadline. Anyone have any advice? Is it possible they push back deposit dates?
i really dont wanna lose that much money
texaslawhopefully
18:48
@llama: This was the best explanation that I read for it: https://samharris.substack.com/p/the-reckoning
18:48
@GapingVariousTurkey: same bro. im not worried cause yolo, but i think an honest talk with each applicable school will allow them to give leeway
texaslawhopefully
18:48
But, yeah, I think many people were shocked
any UK law students?
18:49
@texaslawhopefully: when I have some time i will read, thanks fren. Regardless of whichever of the two [T or H] are in the WH, I truly believe expectations will be looked back on as over worried.
18:50
@thanatologist: Kentucky?
texaslawhopefully
18:51
@llama: I don't know man, maybe I've been reading way too much news but I'm worried in a way I wasn't with Biden, or would've been with Harris
18:53
@texaslawhopefully: looking back, the Rs were freaking out saying Biden was going to end the country, and the Ds were freaking out during DJTs 1st term. Neither did exceptionally bad or good, IMHO. At the end of the day, the rest of the GOV (Judaical and Congress) really put a damper on grandiose executive plans. Finally, we all know Donnie is a talker: he anchors (ie tarrifs), he talks shit, he says he will do X and never does. news eats that shit up, but I think most will not ever come to pass
Dkk
18:54
I really think it's a lot of political theater right now. I think a huge percentage of these EO's are just going to be shot down.
18:55
the news sells fear. that is their product (hence why u see COPD, heart meds, stress/ antidepressants adverts during primtime). We know trump has a big mouth, and when he opens it, he spews nonsense which gets funneled into ur ears- ratings skyrocket.
18:56
not COPD. my bad ^
dem messaging is lightyears behind MAGA messaging, part of this can be blamed on foreign governments boosting the MAGA party to destabilize the country, but the democrat old guard is so far behind MAGA strategy
18:57
@Dkk: exactly.
dems need to give way to modern leftists like AOC and bernie
18:58
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: AOC is my crushhhh
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.