Home
The blog without spam Peru informs us that just impose a fine on the first spammer in the country applying the anti-spam rule that was adopted in 2005 with its regulations. After a process that lasted 6 months, finally INDECOPI issued a decision imposing a penalty. The document is quite extensive and detailed (it has 22 pages) but here they transcribe the final decision of the commission fined the company the sum of 5 Units?? Tax, which amounts to approximately U.S. $ 5,400 .
4. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION ON
FIRST: the state founded by the complaint against Mr Saint Martin School SAC
SECOND: order SAC School of Business, as a corrective measure of trade that meets not send commercial email to the email address of the complainant. Also, to safeguard the collective interests of consumers, ordering that SAC School Company complies with its matching sending commercial e-mail, as prescribed by existing rules on regulating unsolicited commercial e-mail.
In that sense, it requires a School of Business at SAC for a period not exceeding ten (10) working days of notification of this resolution, to report to the Commission on actions taken to implement the remedy ordered.
THIRD: to declare inadmissible the claim made by Mr Saint Martin in respect of payment of compensation. (NOTE: I asked that we require the payment of compensation to each person affected by SPAM. Under the Act compensation is 1% of the ITU for each email received).
FOURTH: to punish SAC School of Business with a fine amounting to 5 Tax Tax Units (UIT), which will be reduced by 25% if the alleged consent to the resolution and then cancel it within five (5) days notification, as stipulated in Articles 37 ° and 38 ° of Legislative Decree No. 807, Powers Act, Rules and Organization of the thirteenth and INDECOPI provision of Law No. 27809, General Law System Competition. FIFTH: Sort SAC School Company within a period not to exceed five (5) working days of this notification, to comply with Mr Saint Martin pay the costs of the procedure, which to date amount to the sum of S/.34.50 , That, notwithstanding the complainant's right to request reimbursement of costs and expenses, once the administrative instance.
That took the optimal play DIRECTORATE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS OF THIS MINISTRY.
That this action is issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 29, subsection 1, paragraph b) of Act No. 25326 and Article 29, paragraph 5, paragraph a) of Annex I of Decree No. 1558/01.
Therefore,
THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA
AVAILABLE:
Article 1 - The communications for direct mail, database issuer must include a notice to inform the owner of the information on the rights of withdrawal or blocking all or part of its name from the database, the mechanism is planned to pursue further the transcription of Article 27, paragraph 3 of Law No. 25,326 and the third paragraph of Article 27 of Annex I of Decree No. 1558/01.
2 - Establecese post when direct communication is not required or prior owner of personal data must be noted prominently in that it is an advertisement. If such communication made through an e-mail header to be included in the single term "advertising."
3 - In the communications that refer to previous articles, the data sender must verify that the mechanisms for exercising the right of withdrawal or blockade have sufficient operational capacity to respond to any exercise of this right from the data.
Article 4 - Communicate, published,? wish the National Official Registry and filed. - Juan A. Naughty.