Archive for the 'News' Category
CANADIAN CASL (ANTI-SPAM LAW) PRECEDENTS
Do you need a precedent or checklist
to comply with CASL (Canadian anti-spam law)?
We offer Canadian anti-spam law (CASL) precedents and checklists to help electronic marketers comply with CASL. These include checklists and precedents for express consent requests (including on behalf of third parties), sender identification information, unsubscribe mechanisms, business related exemptions and types of implied consent and documenting consent and scrubbing distribution lists. We also offer a CASL corporate compliance program. For more information or to order, see: Anti-Spam (CASL) Precedents/Forms. If you would like to discuss CASL legal advice or for other advertising or marketing in Canada, including contests/sweepstakes, contact us: contact.
************
April 24, 2012
The Federal Government appears to be enhancing its online anti-spam legislation resources in advance of Canada’s new Anti-spam Act coming into force. One of the latest examples of this is its new spam and fraud related glossary available at: Glossary. The Government’s new glossary includes definitions of many spam, fraud and Internet crime related terms. For more about Canada’s new anti-spam legislation see: Anti-spam Act.
The Canadian Bar Association’s National Section on International Law has published its April 2012 newsletter and is calling for articles for its next newsletter (see: National Section on International Law).
Included in the International Law Section’s Spring newsletter are articles on sanctions, the Kyoto Protocol, substituted service, the new emergency arbitration rules of the International Criminal Court and international investment arbitration.
Manitoba’s Consumer Protection Office has announced that new consumer protection laws for fair and clear cell phone contracts will come into effect later this year (on September 15, 2012).
According to the Consumer Protection Office, the new rules “focus on ensuring that contracts are clear and provide all important information for consumers” and to ensure that “cell phone contracts are fair to both consumers and businesses”.
The new legislation will: (i) require companies to provide a copy of the contract to consumers before the contract begins, (ii) require companies to fully disclose and explain all charges fees and terms, (iii) restrict companies from making unilateral changes to contract terms, (iv) allow consumers to cancel contracts at any time, for a reasonable cancellation fee, (v) require the minimum monthly cost to be included in advertisements, and (vi) restrict automatic contract renewals.
Manitoba’s decision to introduce stricter regulation of cell phone contracts and disclosure follows similar recent enforcement actions, including by the Competition Bureau (see: here), CRTC (see: here, here, here and here) and Canadian Transportation Agency (see: here), as well as a number of recent cases where significant or novel penalties were imposed, including a recent landmark Supreme Court of Canada misleading contest case in which punitive damages were awarded (see: here, here and here).
These cases and initiatives also appear to signal an increase in the regulation of advertising in Canada in general and heightened scrutiny of price advertising and disclosure in particular (see e.g.: Is the Price Right? Increased Regulatory Scrutiny and Class Actions for Representations Involving Price).
The International Competition Network’s (ICN) 2012 Annual Conference has wrapped up and the ICN has posted copies of the papers, chapters and other conference materials including in relation to the ICN’s Advocacy, Cartel, Mergers and Unilateral Working Groups.
Canada-related materials include a summary of the Canadian Competition Bureau’s information sharing mechanisms (see: Cartel Working Group – Charts Summarizing Information Sharing Mechanisms) and discussions of some of the Bureau’s criminal enforcement efforts (see: Cartel Working Group – Anti-Cartel Enforcement Manual).
CANADIAN CASL (ANTI-SPAM LAW) PRECEDENTS
Do you need a precedent or checklist
to comply with CASL (Canadian anti-spam law)?
We offer Canadian anti-spam law (CASL) precedents and checklists to help electronic marketers comply with CASL. These include checklists and precedents for express consent requests (including on behalf of third parties), sender identification information, unsubscribe mechanisms, business related exemptions and types of implied consent and documenting consent and scrubbing distribution lists. We also offer a CASL corporate compliance program. For more information or to order, see: Anti-Spam (CASL) Precedents/Forms. If you would like to discuss CASL legal advice or for other advertising or marketing in Canada, including contests/sweepstakes, contact us: contact.
************
April 24, 2012
In anticipation of Canada’s new Anti-spam Act coming into force, the federal Government has launched another tool for Canadian consumers and businesses – a “Fight Spam Quiz”. The quiz (or rather quizzes – one for consumers and another for businesses and organizations) include questions about scareware, phishing, Wi-Fi and security, spambots, malware, spam, viruses, corporate Internet and e-mail usage policies, VPNs (virtual private networks) and Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. To take the quiz see: Fight Spam Quiz
Earlier today, the Retail Council of Canada (RCC) issued a news release and its submission to the Standing Committee on National Finance regarding retail pricing in Canada. The Committee commenced a study of the reasons for price differences in Canada and the United States last fall, and has heard from a wide spectrum of witnesses, including from government (the Competition Bureau, Canadian Heritage, Transport Canada, CBSA and Department of Finance), the private sector, academics and industry associations and groups.
In addressing the Committee, the RCC’s President Diane Brisebois urged them to “help set the record straight about the real causes of price differences in Canada versus the United States”.
According to the RCC, Canadian retailers are confronted by the following factors that impact retail pricing in Canada: (i) import duties on finished goods, (ii) supply management affecting food product prices (i.e., marketing boards that impact the prices of dairy, poultry and other products), (iii) vendor pricing (i.e., higher prices for Canadian retailers) and (iv) regulatory harmonization (e.g., in the book industry, in relation to which the RCC said Canada was the “poster child” for regulation leading to higher book prices). The RCC particularly emphasized existing “outdated” tariffs for adversely impacting Canadian retail prices.
The RCC’s submission discusses, among other things, the Canadian retail industry and suggested areas for government action (in relation to country pricing, duty remission on imported consumer goods, supply management and regulatory harmonization/red tape reduction).
Interestingly, the RCC did not address any competition or marketplace concentration issues in its submission, which is interesting given the high level of consolidation in many Canadian industries (including in some retail segments), except to comment on increased foreign competition:
The American Bar Association’s Section of Antitrust Law has launched a very interesting (if perhaps appealing only to competition/antitrust geeks) collection of video interviews with and speeches by some of the leading U.S. antitrust practitioners, enforcement officials and bench. Included are Anne Bingaman, Terry Calvani, Judge Frank Easterbrook, Eleanor Fox, William Kovacic, Tim Muris, Robert Pitofsky and Judge Richard Posner, among others.
In an interesting recent note, Jones Day has commented on a recent FTC administrative action against three of the largest U.S. suppliers of ductile iron pipe fittings (DIPF) alleging that they engaged in price-fixing and other anticompetitive behaviour. In connection with this case, the FTC has published a proposed consent order for public comment to resolve claims that one supplier, Star, violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by engaging in price fixing.
The case is interesting in that the FTC’s complaint alleges that two of the suppliers, McWane and Sigma, invited the third, Star, to collude by communicating through a letter to common customers. The FTC also alleges that the suppliers utilized an industry trade association (the Ductile Iron Fittings Research Association) to exchange sales information to monitor and enforce the parties’ alleged agreement.
The FTC’s proposed consent order would prohibit Star from: (i) agreeing to fix, raise or stabilize DIPF prices (or allocate markets, customers or business opportunities for DIPF), (ii) soliciting any competitor to participate in such anti-competitive conduct or (iii) participate in any agreement between competitors to exchange competitively sensitive information (e.g., sales information).
In Canada, while there is no express provision in the Competition Act exclusively governing information exchanges, the principal risk of such exchanges between competitors is that they can lead to agreements (e.g., price-fixing agreements) that violate the criminal conspiracy provisions of the Competition Act (section 45). Such information can include prices, costs, customers, suppliers, markets, market shares and business and strategic plans.
Information exchanges can also be relevant in establishing the existence of an illegal agreement under section 45 (i.e., be used by the Bureau, a court or a private plaintiff to infer the existence of an agreement that violates section 45).
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
