European Union Says No To Spam

Peter Dyck writes: "CNN reports that the Council of Ministers of the European Union (EU) has agreed on Thursday to pass a new law banning the use of unsolicited e-mail. The resolution also bans the so-called inertia marketing for the promotion of financial services. This means that within the 15 EU member-states companies cannot resort anymore to direct marketing to sell their wares. Marketing is still possible, but the consumers must opt-in for it first." However, this is just one bend in a long and bureaucratic road.

Comments

Read the article?

[Contact]

I could be wrong, but the article strongly suggests that this ONLY BANS SPAM FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES... not all spam. It comments that a Europe-wide policy on spam in general will be debated next year.

Re:Read the article?

[Telek]

No, you're absolutely correct. Apparently Peter and timothy were too happy to actually read the article...

A directive regulating the distance selling of all other goods and services was adopted in 1997 and entered into force last year. Financial services were excluded from its scope since these were considered to require a separate set of rules. A law on unsolicited e-mail covering all other industries is expected early next year. The question of whether to apply opt-in or opt-out to e-mail marketing is provoking hot debate; the Commission favors opt-in, but many members of the European Parliament prefer the more industry-friendly opt-out approach.

So not only is the universal anti-email spam laws not on the table yet, but also neither of the laws have even been fully proposed yet, muchless passed. It's not a universal thing, and it has not even been drafted fully yet, nevermind passed.

As stated, industries much much much prefer the "opt-out" method, and thus since we know how much power the industry has over the laws, it's highly unlikely that they will be passed.

The only reason why the financial sector got this put into the bill is because the regulations for distance selling of their products were not decided in 1997 with the rest of the sectors because it was felt that finance required a different set of rules (why?) and since email marketing wasn't a problem 4 years ago, it wasn't an issue that needed addressing. It'll be interesting to see if it gets passed or just gets squashed or "removed at the last minute due to someone who was supposed to retype it" (a-la the "The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999" in the states).

Financial Products Only

[Conare]

Don't move yet...

This applies to financial products only, although they are talking about more comprehensive legislation later.

"A law on unsolicited e-mail covering all other industries is expected early next year. " (Last paragraph of article)

Not a law... yet

[rleyton]

Disclaimer: I'm not a legal or constitutional expert. Happy to be corrected by others.

For the Americans and non-Europeans amongst the /. readership, this doesn't in itself mean much (legally) right now. By agreeing on the directive, the member states of the EU have committed themselves to putting forward (similair) legislation in their respective national parliaments to the effect.

The council of ministers are simply ministers of the various memberstates having a chat about policy and direction. The European parliament doesn't really (unfortunately) have much bite (nor much of a bark either).

Don't hold your breath. Things move slowly at the EU level. But it's something, all be it small. Let's hope it's enforceable, too.

Re:How long before it's enforced?

[Masem]

Actually, it's not that the US has passed any (the only anti-spam like law on the federal level is the UCE 'junk FAX' law, which has yet to be applied to email); several states have tried to pass laws, some working and some not; I think the only one that's been successful is Washington state, but only because it applies to spammers in WA that spam WA state residents, and not to anyone outside (otherwise it because a Commerce issue and the state's power is overruled).

If anything, in the US, there's a common idea in most government's that any unsoliciated communication (telemarketing, spam, junk mail) is that a one-shot rule is applied; the end company may contact you once; if you wish to recieve no more from them, you can opt out at any time. However, the problem currently stems from the lack of significant enforcement of the opt-out rules; since particularly for email, the opt-out addresses can be invalid, and some marketers use the addresses on the opt-out lists to seed other lists, it's rather ineffective. Given the corporate nature of America, I very much doubt we'll see opt-in marketing, but a few effective rules for controlling opt-out will make good in the long run.