The Federal Civil and Commercial Court No. 3, Secretariat No. 6 of the Federal Capital, Dr. Robert Torti rendered the first ruling that outlaws spam Argentina. In that decision the judge ruled that the defendants must give players access to their personal information, delete information from your emails and stop processing the data. Also condemning the defendants to pay legal expenses.
The case began in February 2003 when Gustavo Tanus and Pablo Palazzi, decided to resort to the courts after the defendant ignored his requests that they send more e-mails with unsolicited advertising.
It is recalled that the November 11, 2003 was issued the first injunction in that case. In that decision the judge ruled that the defendants should refrain from sending emails to the players for the duration of the dispute. In addition to prohibiting the defendants sent e-mail boxes of the actors, the measure had provisions that should also refrain from “transfer or assign to third parties the email addresses or other personal information related to them (arts. 1 , 2, 5, 11 and 27 of Law 25326 on the Protection of Personal Data), pending finalization of the litigation.
In the application, accompanied Palazzi Tanus and copies of emails received, containing addresses that supposedly could ask to be removed from the distribution list, but that never worked, and those who sent them to exercise the rights recognized by the Data Protection Act. In addition to the case was an extensive expertise and demonstrated that Tanus Palazzi had received emails with advertising, had asked to be removed and had not received a reply since continued to receive offers by email.
The ruling is based on data protection law in Argentina, which specifically regulates the marketing and communication in art. 27 provides that those who receive such communications are entitled to access personal data and ask to be removed from the database (Art. 27 Law 25,326). If not, it remains concerned at the possibility of initiating an action of habeas data. The judge’s decision also states that the defendants had a database and to provide a service that allows sending emails sender address hiding violate ss. 6 inc “and” 14 and the law of habeas data as this action impossible or difficult to access the database. Finally noted that the processing of data from the different actors with a purpose contrary to the principle of purpose provided by law 25326.
On the legislative front, the Ministry of Communications has prepared a draft containing heavy fines for those who practice spam, but the project never won state legislature. At present, are pending in Congress, two bills seeking to regulate unsolicited e-mail known as spam, although it is unknown what state are the procedures.
The problem of spam, which in these years came to constitute more than half the e-mail circulating around the network, which is borne the costs of advertising on the person receiving the message (Internet users) and not those who sent. Then there is the damage it causes to the Internet service providers who have to process them and that filters to stop or programs are not 100% effective.
