A few weeks ago, someone on Google+ had a post regarding the new law affecting email marketing in Canada. The Canadian Anti-Spam Law (CASL) went into effect on July 1, 2014 and as the name suggests, its goal is to reduce email spamming. It does this by requiring opt-ins from prospective recipients of email marketing. Essentially, under this new law, you cannot use email to market to prospects unless you have received their “affirmative consent”. Let me be clear, this law does not affect those living in the United States.
However, no doubt about it, spamming is a big problem! The offensive subject lines and email, the risk of spyware and malware… not to mention the fact that one errant click could give a hacker complete access to (and control of) your computer and everything you do on the internet. I’m probably being hyperbolic here but in my mind, spamming is a plague that must be purged!
- Why Should Business People In The U.S. Care About A Canadian Law?
Alright, now that I’ve gotten my personal views off my chest, it’s time to look at whether or not business people here in the U.S. should even be concerned about this law. First of all, as Stephen Meyer discusses, governments look to the laws of other countries when deciding how to handle domestic issues. The legislators of the CASL themselves mentioned that they looked to “Canada’s global partners, such as Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States” when deciding to implement this anti-spamming law. If the CASL is shown to be effective over time, the U. S. might be tempted to copy that approach domestically.
- What is So Wrong With The CASL Anyway?
Well according to Stephen Meyer, a lot. However, before we delve into his issues, you should note that he “owns a business that does email marketing in the U.S.”. So Mr. Meyers would be negatively affected if the U.S. adopted a Canadian-style anti-spamming law.
That disclaimer aside, Mr. Meyers' main problem with the CASL is that its implementation will effectively destroyed 90% of the marketing capability of any Canadian businesses that rely on email marketing (because less than 90% of most business' email database is currently opt-ins). Additionally, the real spammers usually originate from foreign countries - thus, they are beyond the legal reach of the CASL. So in the end, business people will be hurt and spamming, will continue unimpeded.
- Is The Current U.S. Approach To Email Marketing Really More Effective?
Mr. Meyer’s seem to believe that the current U.S. approach (regulated by the CAN-Spam Act of 2003) is superior way of dealing with spamming because it only requires email marketers to include an “unsubscribe” link and their postal address in every email. I simply do not understand how Mr. Meyer can seriously argue that these two elements are effective in helping a reader distinguish between legitimate businesses and bad actors when they require recipients to actually open an unknown email - thus subjecting themselves to possible devastating, computer-destroying malware and spyware!
Though I agree that Canada’s “opt-in” approach may be too restrictive, the U.S. approach is simply way too lax! I also think that we can never fully envision the effectiveness of a new law like the CASL because we always underestimate people’s ability to adapt. Which one of you seriously believes that Canadian businesses and email marketing providers will just passively sit by and allow their business model to become 90% ineffective?
No doubt about it - Canadian companies and email marketing providers will find creative ways to get the opt-ins they need to comply with this new law. And, I hope U.S. regulators are monitoring what they are doing so that they can use it to strengthen our own anti-spamming laws and improve the overall effectiveness of email marketing.
