英语论文网

. However, after this, the position becomes less clear. Customers and potential customers can both potentially be contacted since the Regulations use the phrase ‘recipient of that electronic mail in the course of the sale or negotiations for the sale of a product or service.’ 

The regulations thus introduce legal uncertainty that is damaging to both the commercial organisation and the individual concerned. The regulations also go against the spirit and terms of the Directive by unduly widening the scope of an exception to an important right, where such an exception should be narrowly construed.  However, the Information Commissioner may offer a limited restriction to the scope of Regulation 22, by indicating that it will not be lawful for a company to send e-mails to browsers of the company’s website.  The company website may have placed a cookie on the browser’s computer such that personal contact details are available to the company, however no contractual negotiations have taken place.     

The second exception outlined in Regulation 22 causes further concern regarding the subject matter of the direct marketing communication. The communication may be directed at similar products or services offered by the commercial organisation. Interpretative ambiguity surrounds use of this phrase: What is meant by similar products or services?

A plethora of examples abound as to the difficulties that could arise from the phrase. Increasing company diversification accentuates this problem. Supermarkets are now selling insurance, credit cards, clothes and electrical goods alongside more traditional foodstuffs. It is unlikely that supermarkets would be able to send e-mails regarding life assurance to existing customers where they only buy groceries, but once the customer has bought pet insurance, this is a financial service and therefore could entitle the company to send an e-mail to that customer regarding credit cards. The alternative, more pessimistic view is that the consumer knows that the supermarket sells non-food items and as such is entitled to send the customer information about these products. The major difficulty with this provision is the potential for mission creep, that is the greater the diversity of goods a customer buys from a company, the more e-mails the company is able to send to the customer. The customer’s ability to exercise his right to stop e-mails may become more onerous and more complicated. The customer may wish to continue to receive e-mails regarding grocery offers, special deals on CDs and DVDs but not wish to receive information on higher priced goods such as Televisions. Thus, the customer may have to personalise his opt-out response. The customer must either send an e-mail listing the types of goods he would not like to receive information about or visit the company’s website and tick a number of boxes which outline the type of goods he is not interested in. Such detailed requirements could render the right to privacy nugatory. The adoption of a soft opt-in regime by the United Kingdom government is in direct conflict with the explicit terms of the Directive. It remains to be seen whether the system will survive. The system could be challenged in a number of ways. Aggrieved individuals may indirectly challenge the British regulations by bringing a case in a British court an本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。