Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010: Opt-in Framework (Prior Consent)

Read a random definition: honest claim

A quick definition of Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010: Opt-in Framework (Prior Consent):

The Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010 requires that people must give their permission before receiving commercial electronic messages. This is called "opt-in" consent. There are some exceptions where consent is not needed, such as when the message is about a transaction or employment relationship. In some cases, consent is implied, such as when the person has a business relationship with the sender or has published their email address publicly. However, in all other cases, the sender must ask for express consent and explain why they want to send messages and who they are. The request for consent must be clear and simple.

A more thorough explanation:

The Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010 requires prior, "opt-in" consent to receive "commercial electronic messages." This means that the person who receives the message must have given permission to the sender before the message is sent. The type of consent required depends on the relationship between the parties.

There are six types of messages that can be sent without prior consent:

  • Messages providing a quote or estimate for a product where the quote or estimate was requested by the recipient
  • Messages facilitating, completing or confirming a transaction entered into by the recipient
  • Messages providing warranty, product recall or product safety information about a product the recipient has purchased or is using
  • Messages providing factual information about a product that involves some type of ongoing service relationship with the provider (e.g. a membership or subscription), or the ongoing service (e.g. membership) itself
  • Messages directly relating to an employment relationship or an employee benefit plan that the recipient is currently participating in
  • Messages that deliver a product or service, including updates or upgrades, that the recipient is entitled to receive pursuant to a transaction the recipient has previously entered into with the sender (or the person on whose behalf the message is sent)

For example, if a customer purchases a product from an online store, the store can send messages about the product's warranty or safety without the customer's prior consent.

Prior consent can be implied in certain circumstances:

  • The sender, the person on whose behalf the message is sent, or the person who "permits" the message to be sent has an "existing business relationship" or an "existing non-business relationship" with the recipient
  • The recipient has published their electronic address and has not stated that they do not wish to receive unsolicited commercial messages at that address, and the message is relevant to their business or official role or duties
  • The recipient has disclosed their electronic address to the sender and has not stated that they do not wish to receive unsolicited commercial messages at that address, and the message is relevant to their business or official role or duties

For example, if a person provides their email address to a company during a business transaction, the company can send messages related to that transaction without the person's prior consent.

In all other cases, prior, express consent is required, and the request for consent must clearly state the purpose(s) for which consent is sought and identify the sender and any person on whose behalf the messages would be sent.

For example, if a company wants to send promotional emails to a person, they must first ask for the person's permission and clearly state the purpose of the emails and who will be sending them.

Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010: Message Redirection and Software Installation | Canadian Anti-Spam Law of 2010: Potential Extension to Telephonic and Fax Solicitation

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
17:34
@LawIsForPeasants: I just want you to know that: you matter, you are important, and finally, I am proud of you. :D
That is so fucking cringe and leave me alone
llama i appreciate you
17:35
@LawIsForPeasants: while charlie kirk's facts do not care about your feelings, just know that I do!
texaslawhopefully
17:36
@Dkk: Fair enough, but if you're using political philosophy to defend Trump, it's hard to reconcile him as a candidate with very relevant classic political theory, like Locke's individual rights and limited government as illustrated in the 2nd treatise, or the constitutional framework limiting executive power (e.g., Federalist 51). Trump's disregard for constitutional checks and populist rhetoric directly is in tension with our very foundational principles.
Dkk
17:36
@SplitterusClitterus: sounds good. Trying to paint a wine glass rn anyway after I just woke up.
Dkk
17:37
@texaslawhopefully: Psssh I would not use gender relations as a way to defend Trump. He does not go that route and I think literally him and everyone in their cabinet has no idea what those are. I mean, just look at how many divorces Elon and Trump have had.
texaslawhopefully
17:38
Was that not why you said you voted for him?
17:38
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: can I ask what “2 years retroactive withdrawals” means
17:39
elon and trump realize there are many fish in the sea, and sometimes u can't just 'make it work'
@sadpadresfan: grades changed to W for two consecutive years of classes
Dkk
17:39
Nah, I did not vote. I have never voted in my life because I have a lot of issues with it. 4 years ago my mom filled out my ballot for me because she wanted to but I do not vote.
17:40
based fellow non voter
@llama i do not need or desire external validation.
17:40
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: ah I see
17:41
@LawIsForPeasants: ok, sorry, I will not bother u while u 'self validate yourself in the corner' my bad.
@llama: im self validating so hard rn
17:42
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: thats very ithica of you, wasp.
texaslawhopefully
17:44
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: Out of curiosity, since you're in law school and prolly know fedsoc people, how conservative do you think you have to be to be in fedsoc? Like is a david french sort of conservative fairly common in it, or is it the maga type people mainly
i dont interact with any fedsoc people, but i dont know any maga people at cornell. but the student body overwhelmingly leans left, so i think they might not be comfortable showing that theyre conservative if that makes sense?
one time a guy kind of crashed out about masks in conlaw
but that's the most ive seen
texaslawhopefully
17:47
Yeah, that does make sense. I would like to join fedsoc, but I'm also, clearly, very opposed to Trump and where the GOP has gone.
if you join fedsoc and go for clerking and eventually become a judge. you will be pinholed into maga politics as long as maga is the predominant conservative stance
Idk if @irishdinosaur is online but congrats on UCLA!!
next you will say you want to be the first black kkk grand wizard
@SaddestPortlander: tysm!!!!
texaslawhopefully
18:00
yes congrats irishdinosaur! that's incredible
18:03
@IrishDinosaur: you inspire me and my completely misguided cope that I might ever get into UCLA
Super big congrats irish!!!
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.