1. LAW BYTES
TheStar.com | sciencetech | Do-not-call
violations set alarm bells ringing
Do-not-call violations set alarm bells
ringing
TORONTO STAR GRAPHIC
Industry Minister Tony Clement tabled the Electronic Commerce Protection Act on April 24, 2008, an anti-spam bill
that bears some similarities to Canada's do-not-call legislation. How would Canadian law address unwanted
telemarketing vs. unwanted commercial email?
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
Email the author
Apr 27, 2009 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (31)
MICHAEL GEIST
Canada's do-not-call list faced severe criticism earlier this year when it was reported that out-of-
country telemarketers, who are beyond the regulatory reach of the Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission, were accessing the list and making unwanted calls to
Canadians. With more than 6 million numbers now registered on the list, the prospect of do-not-
call list registration leading to more calls rather than less instantly became a disturbing reality
for millions of Canadians.
While the misuse of the do-not-call list remains a concern, a review of thousands of pages of
internal government documents released under the Access to Information Act reveal that it is
only the tip of the iceberg.

2. In addition to lax list distribution policies, the enforcement side of the do-not-call list raises
serious alarm bells with the majority of complaints being dismissed as invalid without CRTC
investigation, the appearance of a conflict of interest in sorting through complaints, and a
regulator that has been content to issue quot;warningsquot; rather than levying the tough penalties
contained in the law.
The CRTC documents obtained under Access to Information include a list of companies that have
downloaded the do-not-call list. Given the broad exceptions under the law, virtually no charities,
survey companies, political parties or newspapers have acquired it. Instead, real estate agents,
car dealers, financial advisers and lawn-care companies dominate the list of more than 1,000
organizations.
Many of those organizations are identifiable, yet there are also more than 100 provincial
numbered companies for which little is known, as well as cryptic names such as quot;My broker
officequot; or quot;Michele.quot;
It is unclear whether the CRTC invoked further verification before granting access to unknown
organizations.
The proliferation of the do-not-call list is certainly disconcerting, but the picture that emerges
about its enforcement is even more troubling.
The documents reveal that the CRTC receives more than 20,000 telemarketing complaints each
month, many involving the do-not-call list (some complaints may relate to other
telecommunications rules that cover automated dialers or curfews).
The initial evaluation of complaints is handled by Bell, which manages the do-not-call list, rather
than the CRTC. Bell reviews each complaint and provides a prima facie evaluation of whether it
is valid, invalid or indeterminate (which require further investigation).
Despite tens of thousands of complaints, very few have been categorized by Bell as a prima
facie violation of the do-not-call list. For example, in January, Bell reported that there were only
42 valid prima facie national do-not-call violations, while 3,033 national do-not-call complaints
were ruled invalid (an unknown number of do-not-call complaints were treated as
indeterminate).. The situation was much the same in prior months.
In December 2008, Bell reported only 32 valid do-not-call complaints, while dismissing 2,748
complaints as invalid. In November 2008, there were 44 valid complaints as opposed to 3,981
complaints dismissed as invalid.
Not only are the vast majority of do-not-call complaints dismissed as invalid without any further
investigation, but a complete list of consumer complaints lodged on the CRTC's website reveals
that a who's who of the Canadian business community has been the target of complaints.
Alongside a steady of stream of complaints about vacation offers and duct cleaning, leading
retailers such as the Bay and Zellers, financial institutions such as MBNA, telecommunications
companies such as Rogers, Telus and Bell, as well as newspapers and charities regularly appear
on the complaints list. Under the current system, this means that Bell adjudicates whether
complaints about its own telemarketing practices (and those of its competitors) are prima facie
valid or invalid, a procedure that raises obvious concerns about conflict of interest.
Complaints that survive Bell's initial round of scrutiny go to the CRTC for further investigation.
To date, the CRTC has sent out approximately 70 warning letters where it believes there are
reasonable grounds to conclude that the organization is not in compliance with the do-not-call
list legislation. Recipients of the letters are asked to take quot;corrective actionquot; to address the

3. concerns and are warned that failure to do so could lead to penalties of up to $15,000 per
violation for corporations.
Notwithstanding that threat, the CRTC has yet to levy any fines.
These enforcement concerns became particularly important late last week, when the federal
government introduced new anti-spam legislation that similarly places most of the enforcement
responsibilities with the CRTC.
The Electronic Commerce Protection Act would give the CRTC the power to levy fines of up to
$10 million for spamming activities, yet the experience with the do-not-call list raises questions
about the commission's effectiveness as an enforcement body. There are plans to review the do-
not-call list in a report to Industry Minister Tony Clement later this year.
Given the ongoing concerns around list misuse, enforcement and overbroad exceptions that may
be leading to the dismissal of the majority of complaints without further investigation, Clement
may need to step in sooner to address a major bungling that affects millions of Canadians.