ntial customer decides not to proceed, for whatever reason, they may reasonably assume that because they have not reached the status of bona fide customer, they do not need to tick any boxes or otherwise signify their wish not to receive further communications. The potential customer then exits the website under a serious misapprehension and will be rather shocked to receive new communications from the potential seller/provider. A further e-mail or internet visit is required on the part of the potential customer to prevent further communications.
The E-privacy Directive, is more forthright. Regulation 22 of the British enacting Regulations adopts the terminology ‘recipient’ of an e-mail, which, naturally, can encompass customers and potential customers. Article 13(2) of the Directive affords no such room for ambiguity. The word used throughout is ‘customer.’ The intention of the Directive is clear in this regard: Unsolicited communications are only permissible where prior consent has been obtained. Companies can send unsolicited communications to their customers, where the customers have not objected. However, every new communication must give the customer the option to refuse further communications.
The United Kingdom Regulations obfuscate the position. The general rule of Article 13 of the Directive remains intact: Unsolicited communications are only permissible where prior consent has been obtained英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】. 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?
本文来自：英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】 |
论文编号：
org200806160942349785 
