Archive for the ‘Spam’ Category
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010
We have more IT Law, Domain Law and Telecommunications Law posts coming soon.
Watch this space.
Tags: domain law, domain name law, IT Law, IT Lawyer, IT Lawyers, telecommunications law
Tuesday, May 4th, 2010
Australia will strengthen its stance on cybercrime by signing the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime.
The move will see Australia join the European Union (EU), the United States, Canada, Japan and South Africa. The EU is pushing for the convention to become an international standard. Twenty-seven countries have so far signed the convention, however, more than 100 are using it to reform domestic laws.
Key points of the convention include:
Australia’s signing of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime follows our involvement in negotiations for the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and several national cybercrime attacks involving Federal Government websites and sites of major corporations. Signing the convention is one of many initiatives Australia is making to reduce our exposure to cybercrime and other potential cyber risks.
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010
In a landmark move, the ACMA has for the first time brought an action in the Federal Court against Telco GoTalk for an alleged breaches of the Do Not Call Register Act 2006.
The ACMA alleges that GoTalk via its two offshore calls centres called 40,000 numbers contained on the Do Not Call Register.
Breaches of this kind have proven to be costly for infringing companies in the past, with Dodo Australia being issued a fine of $147 400 in 2008 for its call centres ringing 67 de-listed Australian phone numbers.
This isn’t the first sign of trouble for GoTalk. Last year the company accepted undertakings by the ACCC to record telemarketing calls and to monitor conversations at random to ensure compliance with the TPA, in response to allegations that its offshore call centres had misrepresented information to consumers, including pricing and terms and conditions.
The matter is listed for directions on 29 March 2010 in the Federal Court in Sydney.
Tags: ACMA, Do Not Call Register, Do Not Register Call Act, GoTalk, ISP lawyer, ISP Lawyers, IT Lawyers, telecommunications lawyer, Telecommunications Lawyers
Sunday, December 27th, 2009
To all of our clients and visitors to our blog, we wish you seasons greetings and a safe and prosperous new year.
Thank you for your support in 2009, and we look forward to working with you in 2010.
Our office will be re-open on 11 January 2010.
Stay tuned for our new IT Law, Telecommunications Law, Domain Law and general Commercial Law articles / posts.
Tags: Commercial Law, domain law, domain name law, IT Law, telecommunications law
Thursday, December 10th, 2009
We are working on bringing you some more new and interesting IT Law and Domain Law posts and articles shortly.
To assist us to cater to our audience, if you have any specific requests for IT Law, Domain Law or Telecommunications Law articles or information, feel free to drop us a note at firstname.lastname@example.org
Tags: domain law, domain lawyer, IT Law, IT Lawyer, telecommunications law, Telecommunications Lawyers
Sunday, October 25th, 2009
The Federal Court has issued a fine of $15.75 Million against spammers found guilty of using an elaborate scheme to deceptively obtain mobile phone numbers and spam them.
In August 2009 the Australian Communications and Media Authority (‘ACMA’) obtained default judgment against Mobilegate Ltd and Winning Bid Pty Ltd – and three individuals – Mr Simon Anthony Owen, Mr Tarek Andreas Salcedo and Mr Glenn Christopher Maughan.
The action commenced in late 2008 when the ACMA learned of the highly organised plan, where the ACMA alleges the spammers obtained mobile telephone numbers from dating websites, after posing as members of these websites. It is then alleged that:
The ACMA claims that the spammers obtained more than $2 million from their scheme, which was in contravention of the Spam Act 2003.
The judgment is seen as a win for the ACMA in its fight against breaches of the Spam Act 2003, and is sure to serve as a serious warning to potential spammers.
Earlier this year the ACMA issued fines against Optus for breaches of the Spam Act 2003, as part of its campaign against spammers.
Tuesday, August 25th, 2009
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has obtained an enforceable undertaking from MYOB Australia E1 Pty Ltd for breaches of the Spam Act 2003.
Following an investigation by the ACMA, a SmartyHost, division of MYOB was found to have been sending emails to people who had unsubscribed from its mailing lists. The ACMA found that SmartyHost had not actioned the unsubscribe requests.
Chris Chapman, Chairman of the ACMA said:
s18 of the Spam Act 2003 makes it a specific requirement that commercial electronic messages must have an unsubscribe facility (that works!) which must remain active for at least 30 days after the message is sent.
The ACMA’s action is consistent with its recent get tough approach to enforcement of Spam and the Do Not Call Register
Monday, January 19th, 2009
In a decision that should send a warning to all Australian ISPs and Telcos, Optus Networks Pty Ltd (‘Optus’) has been fined $110,000 for breaching the Spam Act 2003.
The penalties were the result of two infringement notices issued by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) after Optus allegedly sent electronic messages without accurate sender identification.
The infringement notices were in relation to 20,000 commercial electronic messages sent by Optus to the carrier’s mobile phones users, to promote its OptusZoo entertainment service. The messages were sent with a sender identification of ‘966’ (these numbers spell out ‘Zoo’ on a phone keypad).
ACMA claims that Optus assumed that recipients of the messages would make the connection between ‘966’ and ‘Zoo’.
As we all know, 966 can represent a number of different words on a key pad, for example Zon or Yon.
Spam Act 2003
The Spam Act 2003 regulates unsolicited commercial electronic messaging in Australia. Commercial electronic messages include emails, SMS messages and MMS messages.
The Act sets outs that commercial electronic messages must involve direct or inferred consent, identify the sender and give the recipient the ability to unsubscribe.
The Spam Act provides a range of enforcement options, including formal warnings, enforceable undertakings, infringement notices and Federal Court proceedings. The legislation sets out penalties of up to $1.1 million a day for repeat corporate offenders.
We think that this will not be the last of the fines in light of a chain of recent investigations in the ISP Telco market, and comes hot on the heels of an enforceable undertaking given by Oxygen8 Communications last month.
It is still surprising to see that many clients still come to us with marketing campaigns for review, which in some way fall foul of the Spam Act – of even more surprise is that simple Spam Act compliance requirements, such as functional unsubscribe facilities, were not included in proposed email campaigns.