While reported regional data privacy law breaches have been slow to materialise (at least until mandatory reporting is required), the same can’t be said of spam law complaints and breach notifications. Regulators in recent times have been much more keen to bring action against spam infringements.
As more commercial marketing initiatives shift from offline into online plus the increased use of social media to propagate viral email campaigns, having a basic knowledge of how spam laws work is essential.
Some recent spam regulatory action in the region includes:
Australia: Late last year, the local regulator the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) issued a public guidance (via their blog) of the interpretation of refer-a-friend marketing programs viz. spam laws and a warning notice given to fast food giant McDonalds. Their position is that refer-a-friend email facilities must comply with the usual consent and unsubscribe requirements of the Spam Act. With the advent of social media, many websites utilise standard share tools and widgets – without knowing the exact features of the McDonalds’ refer-a-friend tool, it seems any public share widgets for Australian use will need to have some technical capability to be able to comply with ACMA’s guidance.
ACMA has been very active in recent years and already in 2013 has issued public fines to several high profile companies – most recently in the liquor and marketing oriented telecommunication industries.
Hong Kong: HK’s OFTA issued a consumer alert early in 2012 clarifying that HK’s Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance was technology neutral in terms of application to the messaging platform to include mobile voice apps and unsolicited pop-up browser ads.
A short comparison table of spam laws in APAC:
| Country | Legislation | Messages | Coverage | Sanctions | Notes |
| Australia | Spam Act 2003 | Email, IM, SMS(fax excluded) | Messages originating within Australia or to an Australian address | Up to A$220,000 per day & up to A$1.1m for repeat breach. | Message must include sender ID and unsubscribe |
| China | Measures for the Administration of Internet E-Mails (2006) | Licensed PRC email service providers | RMB10,000; up to RMB30,000 if illicit income generated | AD labeling requirement, sender ID and unsubscribe | |
| Hong Kong | Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance 2007 | Voice, fax, email, IM, SMS | Messages originating within HK or to a HK number or address | HK$100,000 & up to 2 yrs jail; up to HK$1m & 5 yrs jail on indictment | Message must include sender ID and unsubscribe within 10 days |
| Malaysia | Communications and Multimedia Act 1998; ISP Sub-Code | Application service communication to… ‘any number or electronic address’ | Communication with intent to “annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person” | No civil action.Up to RM50,000 fine; RM1,000 per day for repeat offence. | Sender’s intent to ‘harass’ required |
| New Zealand | Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 | Email, IM, SMS and fax | Messages originating within NZ or to an NZ address | NZ$200,000 (individuals)NZ$500,000(companies) | Message must include sender ID and unsubscribe |
| Singapore | Spam Control Act 2007 | “bulk electronic messages” | Originating and receipt in Singapore only | Civil liability S$25 per spam, up to S$1m. | ADV labeling and unsubscribe requirements for compliant messages |
Note: This table is a simplified overview and not exhaustive; each country’s law includes specific exclusions and functional requirements for permitted electronic messages.
