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

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

03.06.2022 NL law
Podcast: circulair ondernemen en de juridische mogelijkheden en beperkingen

Short Reads - In deze Stibbe Legal Insights gaan Bram Schmidt, Ida Mae de Waal en Christian van Maaren in op het juridisch kader bij circulariteit. Zij bespreken de transitie naar een circulaire economie en hoe bedrijven, ondanks de beperkingen van huidige wet- en regelgeving, meer circulair kunnen opereren. Ook bespreken zij hoe bedrijven zich kunnen voorbereiden op nieuwe Europese wet- en regelgeving op het gebied van hergebruik, recyclen en circulair productontwerp.

Read more