Enforcement of CASL relies on a spectrum approach. The CRTC, which is the main enforcer, issues information on compliance, educates business associations, and then if there are problems, issues warnings, reprimands, seeks voluntary consent orders, and finally if necessary issues administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs.
In PIAC’s view, contrary to the opinion of some of the other parties here today, CRTC enforcement of CASL has been very generous to offenders and in some cases, nearly to the point of being weak. Companies are given many chances to change their practices. When more stringent sanctions are required, AMPs are often set at well less than the maximum possible due to the consideration of many mitigating factors, which are outlined in CASL. I will add here that of the undertakings published on the CRTC website, only two exceed $100,000. Those are for Rogers Media and Porter Airlines, which are not your typical or your average small businesses. Yet the CRTC does have the authority to impose an AMP of up to $10 million per violation for corporations. Finally, all offenders are permitted to challenge AMPs before the CRTC, which can reduce, and has reduced, the recommended AMP.
The committee should also note that the government has apparently indefinitely suspended the bringing into force of the private right of action in CASL, which would have allowed consumers to sue particularly recalcitrant or aggressive spammers. Marketers, and in particular those marketers that act responsibly while attempting to adhere to CASL, therefore face little prospect of any significant AMPs or other sanctions.