Archive for the 'Marketing' Category
Gift cards are a type of stored-value payment card issued by retailers that are preloaded with a specific value for future purchases. These include cards that can be used at a particular store or retailer, cards redeemable at a chain or mall and credit card branded cards that can be used wherever a particular brand of credit card is accepted.
There are two main types of gift cards: “open loop” and “closed loop” cards. Open loop gift cards can be used anywhere (e.g., in any store in a shopping mall). Closed loop gift cards can only be used at a particular store, location or chain.
Gift cards are primarily regulated by provincial legislation, although some federal legislation can also apply (e.g., the misleading advertising provisions of the federal Competition Act). Key aspects of provincial gift card regulation include rules relating to expiry dates, fees and the disclosure of key terms and conditions.
British Columbia introduced gift card legislation in 2008. In British Columbia, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (“BPCPA”) and Prepaid Purchase Cards Regulation regulate prepaid purchase cards. Consumer Protection BC enforces British Columbia’s gift card legislation and regulations.
“Prepaid purchase cards” are defined as cards, written certificates or other vouchers or devices with a monetary value that are issued or sold in exchange for the future supply of goods or services to consumers, including gift cards and gift certificates.
In general, British Columbia’s gift card legislation prohibits expiry dates and fees (except in certain circumstances), requires suppliers to disclose certain prescribed information (and sets out how that information must be disclosed) and gives gift card purchasers certain refund and other rights where the legislation is not complied with.
On September 28, 2012, the Competition Bureau published its September In Brief newsletter, which includes recent announcements of the appointment of John Pecman as Interim Commissioner of Competition, publication of the Bureau’s final Abuse of Dominance Guidelines, commencement of its new misleading advertising suit against Bell, Rogers and TELUS and update on its abuse of dominance challenge against Canada’s largest real estate board, The Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB).
The Bureau also announced a joint Internet fraud sweep together with members of ICPEN (the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network), which targeted deceptive and fraudulent advertising in the “rapidly growing online and mobile markets.” In making the announcement, the Bureau indicated that it was focused on undisclosed fees and hidden terms (themes consistent with its recent challenge of Bell/Rogers/TELUS – see: here):
CANADIAN CONTEST RULES/PRECEDENTS
Do you need contest rules/precedents
for a Canadian contest?
We offer many types of Canadian contest/sweepstakes law precedents and forms (i.e., Canadian contest/sweepstakes law precedents to run common types of contests in Canada). These include precedents for random draw contests (i.e., where winners are chosen by random draw), skill contests (e.g., essay, photo or other types of contests where entrants submit content that is judged to enter the contest or for additional entries), trip contests and more. Also available are individual Canadian contest/sweepstakes precedents, including short rules (“mini-rules”), long rules, winner releases and a Canadian contest law checklist. For more information or to order, see: Canadian Contest Law Forms/Precedents. If you would like to discuss legal advice in relation to your contest or other promotion, contact us: Contact.
____________________
Social media is increasingly important for effective marketing and promotion, including the operation of contests. Contest organizers should be aware, however, that there can be specific terms of use that apply to the promotion and administration of a contest using social media.
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.
************
September 23, 2012
I’ve been seeing an increasing flutter of updates and newsletters recently discussing the status of Canada’s new (though still unclear when) anti-spam legislation (“CASL”). So I thought I would have a poke around the web, see what Industry Canada, the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and Privacy Commissioner’s office have been up to lately and post a few thoughts on the progress of the new law that is inching along, some recent developments and practical steps that can be taken before the law is in force.
In speaking to some industry groups recently, I’ve had some questions about provincial licensing requirements for telemarketing (and who the rules apply to and the basic requirements).
Most companies engaged in telemarketing (as well as the agencies and lawyers assisting and advising them) will already be well aware of the federal requirements under the Competition Act and National Do Not Call List (see: Telemarketing).
Less well known, I’ve recently found, is the fact that in British Columbia, a third level of regulation may apply: the Telemarketer Licensing Regulation (the “Telemarketer Regulation”) under the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (“BPCPA”).
In general, all telemarketers conducting business in British Columbia (or contacting British Columbia consumers by phone or fax) to enter distance sales contracts are subject to the Telemarketer Regulation. The Regulation also applies to telemarketers that contact BC consumers to solicit consumers for contributions on behalf of 3rd party suppliers – for example, 3rd party fundraisers.
“Distance sales contracts” are defined as: “contracts for the supply of goods or services between a supplier and a consumer that [are] not entered into in person and, with respect to goods, for which the consumer does not have the opportunity to inspect the goods that are the subject of the contract before the contract is entered into, but does not include a prepaid purchase card.”
Telemarketers are required to have licences for each location (which must be displayed), fulfill certain reporting obligations (including new employee identity and contact information and changes in senior officers or corporate control) and are subject to record-keeping requirements (including customer names and contract details).
The Telemarketer Regulation also limits the days and times for telemarketing calls and the frequency and manner of calls (for example, telemarketers cannot call on statutory holidays, outside of specified hours during weekdays or on weekends or block their numbers).
Exemptions from the licensing requirement include charities, educational institutions, banks and credit unions, political organizations and survey firms.
For more information about the provincial licensing and regulation of telemarketers in British Columbia see: Consumer Protection BC – Telemarketing Portal, Do Not Call – Telemarketers, Charities and Telemarketing – Avoiding Scams, Telemarketer Licensing Regulation, Telemarketing in BC – The Basics, Questions to Ask a Telemarketer.
We help individuals and companies comply with Canadian advertising and marketing laws, including Canada’s telemarketing laws.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services: Contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
Last week the Advertising Standards Canada released its fourth annual Compliance Report on the Canadian Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (see: Advertising Standards Canada releases 2011 Compliance Report on Canadian Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative).
The Initiative was launched by members of Canada’s food and beverage industry in 2007 in an effort to shift the landscape of advertising directed to children under 12 to the promotion of “better-for-you products”.
Under this Initiative, which includes advertising in all major media (as well as children focused media such as video, computer games and DVDs), participants have committed to either not direct advertising primarily to children under 12 or shift advertising to promote products that are “consistent with the principles of sound nutrition guidance.” The Initiative includes specific nutrition criteria (e.g., foods that reflect the dietary guidelines of Canada’s Food Guide or nutrient content claims of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising). Participants in this initiative have also agreed to certain other commitments, such as reducing the use of 3rd party licensed characters used to promote non-Initiative approved products, not advertising in elementary schools or paying for product placements in programs directed at children.
According to the ASC, some participants have stopped child-directed advertising altogether (the 19 food and beverage company participants include Burger King, Campbell’s, Coke, General Mills, Hershey, Kellogg, Kraft, Mars, McDonald’s, Nestle, Pepsi, Post, Unilever and Weston). Others have launched new “better-for-you” advertising initiatives. No product in the ASC’s Initiative is more than 200 calories and every meal is less than 600 calories.
The regulation and self-regulation of food and children’s advertising and labeling is governed in Canada by, among other things, the federal Competition Act, Food and Drugs Act and Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, as well as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising and the ASC’s Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children and Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (which contains specific rules relating to advertising for children).
For a copy of the ASC’s new report see: Canadian Children’s Food & Beverage Advertising Initiative.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services: Contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
In what can only be described as a growing war against telecom advertising in Canada, the Competition Bureau announced on September 14, 2012 that it began proceedings in Ontario Superior Court against Bell Canada (“Bell”), Rogers Communications (“Rogers”), TELUS Corporation (“TELUS”) and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (“CWTA”) for alleged misleading advertising in relation to “premium texting services” (see: Competition Bureau Sues Bell, Rogers and Telus for Misleading Consumers: Bureau Seeks Customer Refunds and $31 Million in Penalties).
The Bureau is seeking both the maximum civil penalties available under the Competition Act (the “Act”) against Bell, Rogers and TELUS, as well as full restitution for consumers (amendments to the Act in 2009 both significantly increased the monetary penalties for misleading advertising and introduced a new restitution penalty). The Bureau is seeking a $1 million AMP against the CWTA.
According to the Bureau’s allegations, Bell, Rogers and TELUS (together with the CWTA) facilitated the sale of 3rd party premium-rate digital content – for example, news, advice, alerts, trivia quotations, horoscopes and ringtones – without adequate disclosure of their fees and suggestions were made in advertising for these products that the services were free.
In making the announcement the Bureau said:
“’Our investigation revealed that consumers were under the false impression that certain texts and apps were free,’ said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. ‘Unfortunately, in far too many cases, consumers only became aware of unexpected and unauthorized charges on their mobile phone bills.’ The premium-rate digital content in question can cost up to $10 per transaction, and up to $40 for a monthly subscription, rates over and above standard text messaging plans.”
The premium 3rd party content was marketed through free wireless apps and online, and have been the subject of previous consumer studies (see: Paying a Premium: Consumers and Mobile Premium Services, a Public Interest Advocacy Centre report) and critical commentary (see here). The 2011 PIAC report found, among other things, that consumer premium mobile service problems were under-detected and underreported, that the industry often dismisses complaints and no agency tracks or handles related complaints (leading to a recommendation for measures to improve consumer protection in relation to premium mobile services).
This is also the most recent case is the latest in a series of high profile advertising law challenges made by the Bureau against Bell (price claims and disclaimers; see here and here), Nivea (performance claims and the general impression test; see: Nivea), Yellow Page Marketing (misleading business claims and disclaimers; see: here, here and here) and the ongoing Rogers case (performance claims, the general impression test and disclaimers; see: here).
The Bureau’s Claim & General Impression Test
The thrust of the Bureau’s Statement of Claim under Canadian competition law is twofold: first, that the wireless companies made false or misleading representations to the public online and over their wireless networks the general impression of which was that consumers could receive premium text messaging and other services free (when they were in fact charged for the content); and second, that claims were made that consumers were safeguarded from receiving and having to pay unauthorized charges, when in fact the wireless companies collected and facilitated such charges keeping a portion.
In this regard, in Canada the general misleading advertising provisions of the Act can be violated where claims are either literally false or convey a false or misleading general impression.
Interestingly, the Bureau has also imported the recent (and lower) general impression test from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Richard v. Time, alleging that the telecoms’ false or misleading representations were targeted at wireless users, including “credulous, inexperienced, and vulnerable” persons, such as children.
The CWTA’s News Release and Control
In the CWTA’s news release, it indicates that it had in fact contacted the Bureau last year to investigate potential remedies for non-compliant advertising by companies utilizing Common Short Codes (and offer assistance in pursuing potential remedies), the Bureau chose instead to pursue litigation against the CWTA and the defendant telecos, that wireless carriers do not in fact create or control text messaging services (but rather only manage the billing for 3rd party creators and operators) and that the Bureau’s actions could disrupt Canadians’ access to text messaging services.
The control point made by the CWTA is an interesting, if not entirely settled point (i.e., in Canada, the degree to which a party, such as an ISP, must be linked to a false or misleading claim in order to be liable remains subject to debate).
In its Claim, the Bureau emphasizes the wireless companies’ involvement and control of the delivery of text messaging services, through third parties, alleging that the defendants are “far from being passive conduits” for the distribution of text messaging services, but rather provide third party providers with “privileged access” to their networks and the necessary infrastructure to deliver services (while collecting related revenues). According to the Bureau, the entire model for delivery of text messaging services through Short Codes and third parties has been established and is administered by the defendants, relying on their active participation.
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.
************
September 13, 2012
The Canadian Corporate Counsel Association recently published a new article on Canada’s impending (but when?) new anti-spam legislation, entitled Canada’s Anti-spam Law: Filtering Relationships (by Yves Faguy).
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
