Articles

Digital Law Up(to)date: ‘Inbox advertising’ constitutes use of electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing

Digital Law Up(to)date: ‘Inbox advertising’ constitutes use of electr

Digital Law Up(to)date: ‘Inbox advertising’ constitutes use of electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing

06.12.2021 EU law

On 25 November 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the display in the electronic inbox of advertising messages in a form similar to real email constitutes an unsolicited communications.

On 25 November 2021, the Court of Justice of European Union (“CJEU”) ruled (case C-102/20) that the display in the electronic inbox of advertising messages in a form similar to real email constitutes an unsolicited communications (article 13 of the directive 2002/58 on privacy and electronic communications). The CJEU finds that inbox advertising constitutes spamming. 

Firstly, it considered that the advertising was sent by e-mail (which is in fact not technically the case). It justified this by considering that the advertising pops up in an electronic inbox, directly in the list of emails, in the space normally reserved for private emails. This prevents the user from having an overview of their emails and creates confusion between private emails and advertising. It therefore argues that since the advertising appears in the electronic inbox, the inbox should be considered as the means of communication of the advertising.

Secondly, it states that in order to qualify as spam (unsolicited emails), it is sufficient to be faced with a communication for commercial purposes that directly and individually reaches users of an electronic communication service by being inserted into the electronic inbox. In other words, the location of the advertising seems to be decisive in the reasoning of the CJEU.

Finally, the CJEU states that inbox advertising is a persistent and unwanted solicitation within the meaning of Annex I, point 26, of the unfair commercial practices directive (directive 2005/29). Persistent character requires that the solicitation be sufficiently frequent and regular. In this case, according to the Court, the requirement is met by three inbox advertising messages received in 35 days.

By Edouard Cruysmans and Erik Valgaeren
 

Team

Related news

13.12.2021 BE law
Publicité comparative des prix : prétendre faussement d’avoir le prix le plus bas est une pratique commerciale déloyale, mais être un concurrent et parler négativement de cette pratique à des tiers l'est aussi

Articles - Le Président du tribunal de commerce d'Anvers(1) a ordonné la cessation d'une publicité comparative illicite suggérant que l'entreprise offre un prix globalement plus avantageux, tant par rapport au marché dans son ensemble que par rapport à un concurrent spécifique. La critique par le concurrent de cette pratique publicitaire à l'égard d'un fournisseur commun est considérée comme du badinage et a également dû être abandonnée.

Read more

13.12.2021 BE law
Een onrechtmatig verkregen klantenlijst mag niet worden gebruikt om klanten van een concurrent af te werven

Articles - Het Hof van beroep te Gent(1) oordeelde dat het actief benaderen van klanten van een concurrent, door gebruik te maken van een onrechtmatig verkregen klantenlijst, onrechtmatige afwerving is en de bedrijfsgeheimen schendt. Het bevel tot staking van deze oneerlijke marktpraktijk strekt zich enkel uit tot de klanten die nog niet afgeworven zijn en moet beperkt zijn in de tijd.

Read more