The UK is enacting consumer protection regulations (eff. May 26) that will criminalize certain marketing practices that are "unfair." We're talking fines and prison.

This has implications for anyone doing business with UK consumers, including website visitors and those on email lists.

Transparency and disclosure are going to be key to complying with these new regs. In particular, word-of-mouth marketing campaigns will be affected by the new regulatory requirements.

The big unknown is whether the UK will decide to enforce this beyond borders to affect marketers based in the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc. Note that the U.S. has by bilateral agreements enforced anti-spam laws against marketers residing in other countries, i.e. there is precedent for extraterritorial application.

Written more about this particular issue and linked to the relevant UK site with PDF documents here:
Unfair Word-of-Mouth Marketing Can Put You In Jail

Best wishes,

-Mike

Thanks, Mike - that's good to know. What I'm curious about is, on their page they say "high pressure selling techniques" are not allowed, in the UK/EU -- and likely long-copy salesletters squarely fall into that bailiwick -- it'll be helpful to see clarifying precedent law and examples of what's allowed vs not, in the month(s) ahead. For example, does "high pressure selling techniques" apply only to phone calls/telemarketers/inbound calls, or salesletters? videos? what? It will be interesting to see examples, so we know what's allowed vs not.

From:
Unfair Commercial Practices Directive - BERR

"In particular, the Directive will oblige businesses not to mislead consumers through acts or omissions; or subject them to aggressive commercial practices such as high pressure selling techniques . The Directive also provides additional protections for vulnerable consumers who are often the target of unscrupulous traders.

The Directive’s wide scope – it applies to all business sectors – and flexible provisions means that it will plug gaps in existing EU and UK consumer protection legislation; and set standards against which new practices will automatically be judged."

It's never a great think to be faced with even more "consumer laws"

But it might help stop the pirates, sharks, and cons.

Fortunately a long sales letter (and any other advertising/marketing) does not have to use "high pressure" selling techniques.

It's always been better NOT to use high pressure.

But do read the report - just so you're aware of this new "legislation"

Steve

Mike,

Thanks for pointing out another example of the dangers of having idiots as lawmakers.

As Ken pointed out, how are they going to define this? You can say that you shouldn't have to use "high pressure" selling techniques, but do you trust these politicians to define it?

Once again, ALL businesses will be affected by the whim of a group of politicians (lawyers).

On this side of the pond, a group of lawyers in the state of New York has recently decided to financially rape Amazon. I'm guessing the other lawyers in other states are watching closely how Amazon's lawsuit challenging this will play out.

The lawmakers need more money (because of their wasteful ways), so now they are coming up with this kind of crap to circumvent the Supreme Court's 1992 Quill decision.

Mike, I'm not directing this at you personally, but this is why business-minded folks are distrustful of lawyers (especially those that are politicians).

Bill,

Again I am not thrilled that politicians have issued even more "rules".

But when you wade through the new UK legislation - it "points" out - what it deems "high pressure" means.

You are right - it's up to them to "define" it - but with good copy - my view is they won't be able to "class" it as a hard sell.

Steve

Bill,

Already wrote about the New York fiasco:

Internet Taxes Threaten Your Online Business

Although there are plenty of reasons to trash lawyers, in this instance it is a second-hander political mindset rather than the legal profession that is at fault. Here's why.

First, most state legislators who are attorneys have limited or no experience practicing law. They went to law school as a stepping stone to becoming a politician (Barack Obama is an example). In fact, many have an undergraduate degree in political science.

Second, the number of lawyers in state legislatures has decreased because there is more money to be made in the private sector than the public sector. In New York, for instance, the number of lawyer legislators dropped from 61% in 1969 to only 34% in 1999 (Source: April 1999 edition of the California Bar Journal).

Best wishes,

-Mike

Mike,

Thanks for the info. I probably should have limited my disrespect to "Politicians" only. And that was a good post on your blog. I think this might become an epidemic if the New York thing stands. How do you think it will play out?

I think I saw in Dan Kennedy's stuff (somewhere, I don't remember) that socialist George McGovern once tried to run a hotel or something after he served in the Senate. He said that had he known about all the stringent rules, tax regulations, etc. that went with running a business, he might have voted differently on things.

I think it might be a good idea if ALL politicians were forced to be responsible to run a business, meet payroll, etc. before being allowed to vote or propose any kind of legislation. Then maybe these morons would give BUSINESS some respect. I think most of these idiots (here in the U.S) don't realize what really drives the success of this country.

Anyway...We always have to pay attention to whatever schemes they are attempting. And it might just get worse starting in November.