After industry comment during the DTI (now BERR) consultation process the implementation of the anti-spam directive in the UK (and interestingly not elsewhere in Europe -where its obviously thought to be just not cricket (groan)) allowed for unsolicited email to business. But the definition of the exclusion has been inadequate. See below. If the domain name in the address is that of the club you should be OK. If its a personal address of an individual then its strictly unlawful. However, I always find people who bother to complain about spam need a better life. Go for it and good luck.
In case, for some unexpected reason, the above seemed to make sense here is an old article from a monthly column I wrote for the Merseyside ICT Association magazine which will nicely muddy the waters again for you :-
Legally Online
Graham Ross gives a lawyer's perspective
"Brussels sprouts, spam and eggs, please - but without the spam."
11th December saw the arrival of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. Contrary to media reports that the Regulations do not outlaw B2B spam, they cover such as are sent to sole traders or partners (i.e. the vast majority of businesses).
Unsolicited e-mailing to
[email protected] MAY BE lawful if xyz is a limited company but not if it is a trading name of an individual(s). Did I mention the lawyers, favourite phrase - "may be"? Well, even though xyz is a limited company, if the email account is that of an individual (the founder wishing perhaps to personally 'protect' a valuable domain) then the B2B exclusion under the Regulations is lost. Equally, a partnership, which, as with many professionals, subscribes through a service company, loses its protection. This nonsense comes about because Brussels defined the entity for 'living person' status as the email account subscriber rather than the actual owner of the business. Other EU member states, in their implementation, may not have excluded businesses at all.
These uncertainties are worrying given that, as well as enforcement action, any recipient who can establish damage (removal of heavy spamming costs staff time, which in turn costs money) has a right to compensation.
Message? Initiation, or adjustment, of consensual CRM practices is now an urgent task. Also, as the Regulations take precedence over contracts, ISPs may have to amend their terms before punishing 'Regulation compliant' spammers.
What will the Regulations achieve? The real culprits, whether porn merchants enlightening us, apparently, on the dangers of booking into the wrong Paris Hilton, or a Mrs Sese-Seko looking to park her millions, are outside their reach. Instead, these Regulations will simply inhibit SMEs trying to do genuine business. Brussels does it again.
Merseyside ICT Magazine Issue December 2003 P 2
