Standards for approvals obtained in the business e-mail marketing
The current Polish regulations establish opt-in model in the field of direct marketing. It requires prior consent from the recipient to shipping. In the case of the provisions in force in our country, this consent must be expressed directly and unambiguously — that can not be derived from other activities the recipient (eg. Non-participation in the competition or be a consequence of consent otherwise). In each case, the recipient must be able to withdraw previously granted consent, which in practice is associated with the obligation to inform the recipient that an entity uses its data for e-mail marketing
In a campaign e-mali marketing, there are three basic types of permits:
1) consent to the processing of personal data for marketing purposes;
2) consent to receive commercial information;
3) consent to the use of automated calling systems or telecommunications terminal equipment;
Each of the above approvals refers to some other aspect of the way you use specific information and thus, their ranges do not overlap. However, they are linked. It should be noted, however, that you can identify the specific situations in which for the purposes of the campaign e-mail marketing will be sufficient, only one agreement. For example, you only need a third of consents to the campaign with dedicated software to use niepersonalizowanego address, eg .: email@example.com. Because it does not contain any personal information and is not directed to a customized individual. In the vast majority of cases for effective e-mail marketing carried out to larger databases will need to have all of the above approvals. What’s more, it will be important also their scope and content. The other, the demands in this field will concern the execution of the campaign to their own customer base and other implementation of e-mailings on behalf of third parties. The relationship between consents in cases when they involve individuals and the individualized contain personal data is a “story”. In this case, the basic consent is consent to the processing of personal data — in the absence of such agreement, it is unacceptable to conduct any campaign, because the data necessary for that purpose should not be processed at all.
No consent of the individual to receive commercial information excludes the possibility of using for this purpose the automatic systems of call — even if the entity implementing campaigns such consent has. Because each of these approvals must be given clearly and can not be implied, it is not permitted to adopt that the fact granting permission for the use of automated calling systems is tantamount to granting consent to receive commercial information or consent to the processing of personal data. In the literature and comments also indicate that the approval should not be combined. Since each of them is a separate statement of intent, that are supported by the requirements of any other legal act, and ineffective is granting any consent in the form of implicit or tacit, so the derivation of two or three approvals from one statement will be inconsistent with the statutory requirements. However, this prohibition does not result directly from the provisions of a teleological interpretation. So it can not be excluded that in the event of a dispute, the consent combined, the content of which is clear, however, it can be considered exhaustive regulatory requirements.
It is important, however, that the agreement itself remained declaration of will — that allowed the activity of the recipient. So correct will be added to the contract agreement in the form of a checkbox or a list of choices “express / do not agree to ….”. It is wrong, however, a solution in which consent is an integral part of the standard contract, eg. A permanent element of the Rules of the agreement: “By the contract recipient agrees …” and even the default selection of consent in the case of boxes. The recipient must in fact give consent, which requires at least make a statement in the form of selection checkbox’a not the only confirmation of the pre-consent to the signature — which in practice would mean submitting incompatible with the legal requirements of implicit consent. In the event of a dispute or doubt is on the service provider must prove that it has obtained the appropriate permission (art. 4 paragraph. 2 of the Act on electronic services).
That’s why DBMS sp zoo contantly verifies their databases around the world and their publishers. Pls meet all places from over the world to where DBMS sp zoo (www.edbms.pl) has profiled data. Pls ask for more on firstname.lastname@example.org