Another day, another article slamming CASL. Yesterday it was called “a bad law” in an FP Comment. Today’s article titled CASL: A high-level look at the looming disaster called CASL “draconian” and stated “It’s hard to believe that antispam legislation can be this disastrous, but it’s true.” Well these authors can join an esteemed club. CASL has been ridiculed by the press which has called it, among other things, a Monty-Python-esque farce and Spamaflop, deeply stupid, and a sledgehammer that is ludicrous regulatory overkill. Its all that and more including almost certainly being unconstitutional.
Today’s article not only lambasted CASL, the law. It also focused on concerns about the disproportionate fines (and undertakings) exacted by the CRTC including the recent “settlement” by Rogers Media and the CRTC using CASL “to flex its muscles and carve out a space for itself.”
The statute is so broad, the consequences so harsh, that most of us in the compliance industry did not think it could be rigorously enforced. The CRTC simply lacked the resources or the will to enforce CASL in any meaningful way.
We were wrong.
It also warns about the looming problem of class actions when the private right of action comes into force.
These and the many other complaints about CASL make a cogent case for a full Governmental review of CASL, the regulations and the CRTC’s approach to enforcing it.
For more information about CASL, see, CASL: the unofficial FAQ, regulatory impact statement, and compliance guideline, Michael Geist’s defense of Canada’s indefensible anti-spam law CASL.
