A NUMBER of recruitment firms and some of their clients are flirting with danger by sending emails that could be considered illegal under the recent Spam Act 2003, according to a national law firm
A NUMBER of recruitment firms and some of their clients are flirting with danger by sending emails that could be considered illegal under the recent Spam Act 2003, according to a national law firm.
While most large recruitment companies ensured compliance before the Act came into force, the main offenders tended to be firms whose core business was not recruitment, said Stephen Price, group leader of Corrs Chambers Westgarth’s workplace relations group.
“The problem is with those companies who dabble in recruitment, where it’s not their main business, and with clients of recruitment companies who are trying to do it directly themselves,” he said.
Recruitment firms have often used unsolicited emails in their business, Price said, and some firms were still relying on details of previous applicants and targeting them for prospective jobs without complying with provisions of the Act.
“I’ve seen a number of examples recently where recruitment company’s clients have collected information from people who have applied for jobs in the past, and are now sending emails to those people regarding job offers,” he said.
The Spam Act 2003, which came into force on 10 April this year, refers to spam as “unsolicited commercial electronic messaging” and covers emails, mobile text messaging and other electronic messaging.
To be considered spam, messages must be sent without the recipient’s consent, and Price said the legislation was quite general and could be used in unusual ways
He pointed to the first prosecution under the Federal Privacy Act, (Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance) as an example, and said it was only “a matter of time” before a prosecution was successful under the Spam Act.
“People have a certain view of what spam is, which is bulk rubbish email. They don’t think it’s a once-off targeted email. That doesn’t constitute spam in many people’s minds, but it could be,” he said.
“These pieces of legislation can be used in the commercial context. One competitor could effectively dob in another competitor.”
There was also a general lack of awareness among offending companies about the implications of the Act, according to Price.
“They think, ‘No-one’s really going to do anything about it or report it; they’ll just get deleted. So until somebody gets prosecuted, I’ll continue doing what I’m doing,’” he said.
The Act imposes $440 fines for an individual or $2,200 for a body corporate per contravention, with a maximum penalty of $22,000 or $110,000 for a body corporate set for all contraventions that occur on a single day.
Infringement notice penalties for not including an unsubscribe facility or inaccurate sender information, or contravening the harvesting provisions are half of these amounts.
