Successfully reported this slideshow.

Kliknij tu


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Kliknij tu

  1. 1. SPAM: THE EUROPEAN AND DUTCH WAY <ul><li>Willem Grosheide </li></ul><ul><li>Prof.dr. F.W. Grosheide is professor of private law and intellectual property law </li></ul><ul><li>ECLET (CBKE) Symposium WROCLAW </li></ul><ul><li>OCTOBER 2005 </li></ul>
  2. 2. What is SPAM? <ul><li>General definitions </li></ul><ul><li>- Unsolicited Bulk E-mail (UBE) </li></ul><ul><li>- Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (UCE) </li></ul><ul><li>- Unsolicited Electronic Mail (UEM) </li></ul><ul><li>Technical Definition </li></ul><ul><li>- the recipient’s personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is addressed to many other potential recipients </li></ul><ul><li>- the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit and still revocable permission to be addressed </li></ul>
  3. 3. Economics of SPAM <ul><li>Cheap medium for marketing all kinds of goods and services </li></ul><ul><li>Recipients and intermediaries directly pay the costs to download the message to their mailboxes </li></ul><ul><li>Bona fide companies that do not send UBE suffer from unfair competition </li></ul>
  4. 4. Costs Involved <ul><li>Cost Internet subscribers: more than 10 billion Euro per year </li></ul><ul><li>Costs of removal of SPAM neared by European business community 2.25 billion Euro per year </li></ul>
  5. 5. SPAM As Societal Phenomenon <ul><li>SPAM in its actual form originates with the advent of </li></ul><ul><li>the Information Society but as societal phenomenon is as old as regular junk mail </li></ul><ul><li>The majority of UBE originates from the USA and China </li></ul>
  6. 6. SPAM: The Legal Problem <ul><li>The legal problem consists of how to harmonize </li></ul><ul><li>- the freedom of commercial speech (fundamental right 1) </li></ul><ul><li>- the protection of the (informational) privacy (fundamental right 2) </li></ul>
  7. 7. Substantive Law Involved <ul><li>Civil Law (Contract Law; Tort Law) </li></ul><ul><li>Consumer Law </li></ul><ul><li>Data Protection Law </li></ul><ul><li>Telecommunication Law </li></ul><ul><li>Criminal Law </li></ul>
  8. 8. Actors Law Enforcement <ul><li>Public agencies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Principal types of public enforcement: consumer protection authorities; data protection authorities; communications regulators; police cyber-crime units or criminal prosecutors; and various others </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Private Sector Assistance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lawsuits against spammers: developing best practices, technical recommendations for ISP’s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comp. OECD Guidelines for Protecting consumers from Fraudulent and Deceptive commercial practices Across Borders (2003) </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Sanctions and Remedies <ul><li>Non-monetary </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Warning letter </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Injunction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Imprisonment (through criminal process) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Revocation of business license </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ban Internet access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Closure of business premises </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Confiscate material </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Destruction of data </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Monetary </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Administrative fine </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Civil fine and/or damages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Criminal fine </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consumer redress </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disgorgement of ill-gotten gains </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asset freeze </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. EU Legislative Activities <ul><li>Actual state </li></ul><ul><li>- Data Protection Directive 1995: general rules for the processing of personal data (data which allow for identification of an individual); no particular attention to SPAM </li></ul><ul><li>- Distance Selling Directive 1997: prior consent required of consumers for the use of automatic calling systems without human intervention </li></ul><ul><li>- E-commerce Directive 2000: directly referring to electronic mail as an example of unsolicited communication </li></ul><ul><li>- E-Privacy Directive 2002: see hereafter </li></ul>
  11. 11. Overview E-Privacy Directive <ul><li>The Directive strikes a balance between the freedom of commercial speech and the protection of the privacy – see Recital 40 jo Article 1 </li></ul><ul><li>In essence the Directive prohibits the issuing of SPAM without the recipient’s prior consent </li></ul><ul><li>The Directive contains provisions on a number of issues such as security of networks and services, confidentiality of communications, cookies, data retention, calling line identification, public subscriber directories and unsolicited communications </li></ul>
  12. 12. Focus on Article 13 E-Privacy Directive <ul><li>Article 13 (1) </li></ul><ul><li>- The use of automatic calling systems without human intervention (automatic calling machines), facsimile machines (fax) or electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing may only be allowed in respect of subscribers who have given their prior consent </li></ul><ul><li>- Scope of application </li></ul><ul><li> * electronic communications </li></ul><ul><li> * direct marketing </li></ul><ul><li> * prior consent </li></ul>
  13. 13. Prior Consent: Opt-In <ul><li>Main rule: </li></ul><ul><li>The use of e-mail for direct marketing purposes (i.e. commercial e-mail) will only be allowed in case of opt-in prior consent which means that the recipient has to give his permission to send him communications beforehand </li></ul><ul><li>Such opt-in prior consent requires a freely given specific and informed indication that the recipient wishes to receive the communications </li></ul>
  14. 14. Prior Consent: Opt-out <ul><li>Sub-rule </li></ul><ul><li>Under certain conditions the e-marketeer is allowed to follow an opt-out system: </li></ul><ul><li>a. The e-mail addresses are obtained in the context of the sale of a product or a service </li></ul><ul><li>b. The e-mail addresses are obtained in accordance with the conditions of the Privacy Directive 1995 </li></ul><ul><li>c. At each e-mail the recipient must be given the possibility to object to the use of her address </li></ul><ul><li>d. The e-mail addresses may only be used for direct marketing of own products or services </li></ul><ul><li>e. The e-mail addresses must only be used in the course of marketing similar products or services </li></ul>
  15. 15. E-Privacy Law Enforcement Regulation <ul><li>Recital 47 E-privacy Directive jo Article 15 (2) Data Protection Directive </li></ul><ul><li>Domestic Law legal procedures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Civil Law proceedings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Administrative Law proceedings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Criminal Law proceedings </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Current Dutch Legal Situation <ul><li>The Netherlands recently adopted new legislation in order to implement the e-Privacy Directive </li></ul><ul><li>The new legislation is attached to the Dutch Telecommunications Act and entered into force on 19 May 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>The new legislation is largely in step with the Directive </li></ul>
  17. 17. Core Provisions Dutch SPAM Regulation <ul><li>Article 11.7 par. 1 Telecommunications Act introduces the opt-in system; prior consent cannot be deemed to have been obtained by reference to general conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Article 11.7 par. 2 Telecommunications Act contains the opt-out system for existing customers but contrary to the Directive this can also includes UBE for non-commercial and charity purposes </li></ul><ul><li>Article 11.7 par 3 Telecommunications Act contrary to the Directive obliges an e-marketeer to use its true identity </li></ul><ul><li>(which only means a prohibition of using false identity) </li></ul><ul><li>Article 11.7 par. 4 introduces the opt-out system for telemarketing purposes </li></ul><ul><li>N.B. the opt-in system does not apply to business e-mail addresses </li></ul>
  18. 18. Dutch Case Law (1) <ul><li>Civil Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>XS4ALL Internet BV Ab.Fab BV et al. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>District Court Amsterdam, 7 March 2002, Computerrecht 2002/3 , p. 152 and Court of Appeal Amsterdam, 18 June 2002, Computerrecht 2002/5 , p. 299. Supreme Court 12 maart 2004, Nr.COZ/264HRRM/AT Media forum 2004/4, nr. 13 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Staat der Nederlanden vs Dr. Matthias Rath et al. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dictrict Court Almelo, 13 september 2002, Kort Geding 2002, no. 260, Computerrecht 2002/6, p. 378, and Court of Appeal Arnhem, 4 February 2003, Computerrecht 2003/3, p. 209 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Netwise Publications BV vs NTS Computers Tecnology BV </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>District Court Rotterdam, 5 December 2002, Computerrecht 2003/2, p. 149 </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. <ul><ul><li>Mail from Nigeria </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>District Court Amsterdam, 28 May 2003, LJN-nos: AF9286; AF9292; AF9293; AF9294; AF9295; AF 9296. All available at </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nationale Vacaturebank </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pres. District Court The Hague 21 July 2004, KG 04/174 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Administrative Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OPTA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fines up to euro 42.500 (2004); natural persons; small business </li></ul></ul><ul><li>OPTA/NMa Cooperation Protocol </li></ul>Dutch Case Law (2)