On March 25, 2015 the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) announced that Plentyoffish Media Inc. paid a $48,000 fine for alleged CASL violations resulting from their failure to include an adequate unsubscribe mechanism in their email messages. Though this is a relatively small fine considering the maximum penalties allowed under CASL, it is important to take notice.
The basis for the investigation into Plentyoffish Media’s actions is reported to be complaints submitted to the CRTC by registered users of the Plenty of Fish online dating service. More specifically, the CRTC notes that the offending commercial messages sent by Plentyoffish Media did not include a clear and prominent unsubscribe mechanism that could be readily performed.
Some senders want to build their unsubscribe process in a way that is convenient for them but not for recipients, such as forcing a member to log-in before they can unsubscribe (this is not okay). Failure to include a functional unsubscribe mechanism that is easy to find and readily perform is short-sighted and risky for a few reasons:
- One could face legal issues (as Plentyoffish Media can attest). Why expose your organization to unnecessary legal risk and fines?
- Recipients will find another way of stopping the flow of messages when the unsubscribe link is hard to find or the process isn’t easy, often utilizing the “report Spam” or “block sender” function in their email program. An unnecessarily complex unsubscribe process can lead to high spam complaints, causing delivery issues to the subscribers on a list who do wish to continue receiving messages from a sender. Why increase the likelihood of having your messages rejected?
- Recipients attempting to unsubscribe have already made their decision and complicating that process will only cause aggravation. Why leave recipients with a negative impression of your brand when they try to unsubscribe?
In addition to the above considerations, it is also important to reiterate that complaints about Plentyoffish Media came from registered users of the service, not recipients of random spam email from a sender they didn’t know. Often senders want to justify a complex process or bending the rules some other way if they have a relationship with the recipient, but this is a clear indication that one cannot make that assumption under CASL.
Over the years I’ve heard many arguments about why someone should be able to send without an unsubscribe mechanism, but most don’t hold water. My perspective has always been that if you provide an unsubscribe link and it gets used, then it should obviously stay in your messages; if you provide an unsubscribe link and no one uses it, then it does no harm to keep it in there.
The post Fishy Unsubscribe Processes appeared first on Informz.