How can you not love Australia? The Land Down Under should be renamed the Land that Rocks, and it’s not just because Aussies gave us Fosters, Crocodile Dundee, and a bevy of other wonderful contributions. For several years now, the country that’s also a continent has been a global leader in the war against spam, even making contributions to spam filter research through the use of game theory, and on the legislative side, Australia became a pioneer in the war against spam when it passed the Spam Act 2003.
And rather than just rest on its laurels for passing the act, the country’s actually doing something about it. Handing down fines has become something of a routine procedure , with many examples of how the country just isn’t going to take the crap that spammers like to spew. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is the watchdog and enforcer for the Act, and it isn’t easing up on those who insist on bugging others through electronic means. Instead, it’s got its foot on the spammers’ throats and it’s not letting up. Here are a few examples of Australia’s awesomeness:
- In 2009, Vodafone was fined $110,000 (AUD) and Coca-Cola received a formal warning for an SMS spamming campaign
- In 2009, telco Optus got a wakeup call of $110,000 (AUD) for hitting people with the very same thing it was supposed to protect against
- In 2009, spam ‘mastermind’ Lance Atkinson was fined $210,000 (AUD) and ordered to keep his spam-happy fingers away from keyboards for 7 years
- In 2012, Tiger Airways had its whiskers clipped with a $110,000 fine (AUD) for flying in the face of the Spam Act 2003
- This year, Cellarmaster Wines was hit with a $110,000 fine (AUD) for making spam instead of wine
And the list goes on. Its enforcement of the Act allows ACMA to apply fines up to $220,000 (AUD), but it can also take companies and individuals to court, ACMA has achieved court rulings for more than $5 million (AUD) against Perth-based Clarity1, $16 million (AUD) in 2009 against two companies and three individuals, and $24.25 million against 8 individuals in 2010.Not wanting to take that foot off the accelerator, the most recent spam fine is a whopping $165,000 (AUD), levied this week against GraysOnline, a set of shopping sites that reportedly sent hundreds of thousands of spam emails that directly violated the Spam Act 2003. The fine is a record, being the largest ever for which ACMA’s directly (i.e., without court intervention) penalized a company, and according to The Sydney Morning Herald, it’s also the 26th time that ACMA has fined a company under the Act.
According to the SMH, “Julia Cornwell McKean, manager of the ACMA’s Unsolicited Communications and Compliance section, said GraysOnline sent the email without an “unsubscribe” link to 700,000 Australians. Further, about 300,000 were sent to people who had previously withdrawn consent from receiving Grays emails, McKean said.”
When it comes to the oft-frustrating war against spam, both legitimate and illegitimate, this is just about as awe-inspiring as it gets. While other countries (we’re looking at you, Canada) just pretend that they’re actually doing something about spam, Australia is setting the example for how this bad behavior should be treated. Per the SMH, “According to the ACMA, the Spam Act requires that all marketing emails are sent with the consent of the recipient, and include an option for recipients to opt-out of receiving further marketing messages.” And this is an important point, because marketers are the equivalent of used car salesmen, programmed to do whatever it takes to get you in that car. For every ‘real’ email (i.e., the ones you actually want), there are a dozen that are just dying to bypass your spam filter, as if bypassing your spam filter is some kind of magic recipe for a sale. They go out of their way to circumvent, even providing lessons on how to circumvent. Yet they seem to ignore the fact that all they’re doing is ticking off those who simply don’t want it. That’s why we have spam filters, for crying out loud.
Nevertheless, Australia’s got it figured out, and other countries should take note. “’This case demonstrates the domino effect one wrong decision can have,’ said ACMA deputy chairman Richard Bean. ‘Businesses take a huge risk if they decide an email doesn’t need to comply with the Spam Act.’”