ACMA Issues Spam Warning to Website Designer

The regulator of Australian communications ACMA has issued an authoritative warning to ACRIS Services the website designer of Brisbane for distributing promotional electronic mails devoid of taking receivers' permission, thus violating the 2003 Spam Act, published acma.gov.au during the 3rd-week of October 2013.

Actually according to the act, it's mandatory for acquiring recipients' consent about getting any marketing e-mail planned for distribution as also allowing them to opt for not getting any additional such e-mail.

A particular ACMA investigation carried out on ACRIS Services revealed that ACRIS had dispatched seventeen promotional e-mails related to the business' design solutions along with optimum website utility to individuals not having any earlier connection with the business while they hadn't also agreed for getting the marketing e-mails.

Moreover, before the investigation, the regulatory authority had informed ACRIS, several times, regarding the obligations it was to fulfill under the Spam Act.

The authoritative warning implies notifying ACRIS about ACMA's identification of problems that raised concern as also alerting the business of firmer enforcement action in view of non-rectification of the non-compliance.

Reportedly, after Grays Online an Internet-based retailer paid heavy penalties (AU$165,000) because it violated the Act that the latest news spread.

Actually, ACMA had noticed that Grays executed one e-mail campaign canvassing a hotel-booking site namely GrayEscape which it had just launched. According to ACMA, although Grays asserted it wasn't a promotional e-mail, it actually was. For, during the campaign, Grays dispatched bulk e-mails to over 700K people devoid of an opt-out alternative, with over 300K of the recipients, who'd earlier unsubscribed, again receiving the messages.

Richard Bean Deputy Chairman of ACMA stated it was clear from the case that companies required being very careful with e-mails they dispatched. ZDNet.com published this during the 2nd-week of October 2013.

Bean elaborated the current case showed how an incorrect decision could lead to the impact as observed. Organizations took immense risk incase of a decision with an e-mail treated as not requiring abiding by the Spam Act. The case demonstrated one deliberate decision by a marketer online. However, the results could get serious-from possible fines to damaged goodwill, Bean added.

» SPAMfighter News - 11/6/2013