![\"CASL_NowInForce_ENG-01\"](\"http:\/\/hidefideas.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/casl_nowinforce_eng-01.jpg\")
\nAfter much ado about nothing<\/a>, the Canadian Anti Spam Legislation (CASL) finally woke up on July 1st<\/sup> and discovered that it was a real boy. In case you were living off world for the past few years, the law, which was ratified by the Canadian government in 2010, lay in stasis for nearly four years while the lobbyists, bureaucrats and politicians could figure out how to unmake what they had made. You see, someone got the great idea to make tough anti spam laws, but no one stopped to think about the ramifications until the law was actually a done deal.<\/p>\n
It took that long for corporations to beat away at the Canadian government, and even then, the end result was a confusing mishmash that only seemed to get worse as the go-live date of July 1st<\/sup> neared. Only days before the launch, small businesses, charities<\/a>, businesses, government agencies, corporations, and even aunts and uncles<\/a> panicked, trying to figure out how they could immunize themselves against the tremendously stiff penalties of CASL. Even the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the agency tasked with enforcing the law, admitted<\/a> that they didn\u2019t expect to be very effective.<\/p>\n So with all the hullaballoo surrounding the launch of CASL, it\u2019s hardly surprising that, a mere few weeks later, the fallout is tremendous and telling in the way it\u2019s playing out. One only has to Google CASL to see what\u2019s happening north of the US border. Only days after the law went live, the CRTC reported that it was receiving about 1,000 to 2,000 complaints a day. According to Canada\u2019s national newspaper, The Globe and Mail<\/a>, Canadian companies themselves continue to send spam. The confusion appears to be ongoing, too, and the newspaper reports that while \u201cthe law is designed to curtail unsolicited advertising messages that can crowd consumers\u2019 inboxes\u2026marketers and legal experts have complained that the law is set up in a way that makes it expensive for businesses to comply, and that it does not affect the worst spam offenders, who are often offshore and difficult to pin down.\u201d<\/p>\n In a separate article<\/a>, the newspaper also writes that CASL is \u2018regulatory overkill,\u2019 and that the law is confusing even the lawyers. Kimberley Cunnington-Taylor, a lawyer who advises charities and non-profit groups, tells The Globe and Mail that, \u201cThe legislation is written in a way that is unclear to a lot of us. It is very complicated and difficult to understand, even with legal training.\u201d A large part of the problem appears to lie in the vague wording outlined in the act. \u201cThe law doesn\u2019t even define spam or mass messaging. It simply refers to messages sent for any commercial purpose, even if a message goes to only one person, with no intent to deceive. The definitions of both \u2018commercial\u2019 and \u2018consent\u2019 are also exceedingly broad and vague.\u201d<\/p>\n The problems for the law don\u2019t even stop there. According to the newspaper, at least one lawyer believes that CASL is illegal under the Canadian Constitution. \u201cBarry Sookman, a lawyer with McCarthy T\u00e9trault, thinks the law is not just a mess but is probably unconstitutional as well. Here are some examples he has cited<\/a> of e-mails that would not be exempt from the consent provisions of the law: An e-mail from your niece asking you to help with her tuition fees. An e-mail from the kid down the block to all his parents\u2019 friends, offering to mow their lawns. An e-mail from a friend\u2019s daughter selling Girl Guide cookies to raise money for a school trip. An e-mail to your old university acquaintances telling them about your new business startup.\u201d<\/p>\n