Concerns Regarding Unsolicited Email and CASL Compliance

[Skaimauve]

Dear TELUS Team,

I recently received an email from TELUS requesting that I sign a petition. I have some concerns regarding this communication:

1. Unsolicited Contact: I did not provide consent to receive such emails, which appears to be a violation of the Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL), specifically Section 6, which requires express or implied consent for commercial electronic messages.

2. Lack of Unsubscribe Option: The email did not provide an unsubscribe link, as required by CASL, to allow recipients to opt out of future communications.

3. Difficulty in Contacting TELUS: There is no straightforward way to contact a general TELUS entity, making it challenging to address such issues.

I request that TELUS:

• Confirm my email address has been removed from your mailing lists.

• Ensure future communications comply with CASL, including providing an unsubscribe mechanism.

• Provide a general contact method for resolving similar issues in the future.

Please confirm receipt of this email and outline the steps TELUS will take to address these concerns.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[Nighthawk]

This is a public forum and your message isn't an email.

This rundown from another online discussion would seem relevant:

1) The message isn't being sent for a commercial purpose. CEMs doesn't just mean 'coming from a business'. CASL doesn't just generically apply to all messages. A commercial message is one that encourages the recipient to take an action as to:

(a) offers to purchase, sell, barter or lease a product, goods, a service, land or an interest or right in land;

(b) offers to provide a business, investment or gaming opportunity;

(c) advertises or promotes anything referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or

(d) promotes a person, including the public image of a person, as being a person who does anything referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c), or who intends to do so.

This message does none of the above

2) You're confusing express and implied consent. OP has provided implied consent for TELUS to message them via having an existing business relationship, per section 6 (9)(a). So long as OP is a customer of TELUS Corp and continues to receive a service from them, they are providing implied consent to receive messages, CEMs or otherwise. For CEMs, TELUS must provide an option to unsubscribe. This, however, is not a CEM, and TELUS may do so voluntarily, but has no legal requirement to provide an unsubscribe mechanism.

You can also reach out to Telus to unsubscribe. It was quite easy to find: https://unsubscribe.telus.com/ .

Alternately if you're wanting to talk to their privacy team, their number (if called from Alberta or BC) is 310-1000, or 1-800-567-0000 or by email [email protected]. This is another, longer way to get taken off the Telus telemarketing lists by contacting them.

[Mark1989]

Thank you for providing such a detailed response; it’s clear you’ve put thought into explaining the nuances of CASL and the situation.

While the explanation of CASL is technically correct, its applicability depends on a few factors:

• Content of the message: If the message indirectly promotes TELUS’s services or brand (e.g., asking recipients to sign a petition aligned with their corporate interests), it might fall into a gray area.

• Recipient’s perspective: Even if technically compliant, a message perceived as promotional or intrusive by the customer may feel misaligned with CASL’s intent.

That said, I think the tone could come across as a bit dismissive, particularly with phrases like, “You’re confusing express and implied consent.” While the intention is likely to clarify, wording it this way may unintentionally invalidate the concerns being expressed.

Additionally, the opening line—“This is a public forum and your message isn’t an email”—feels unnecessarily defensive and dismissive, setting the wrong tone for a constructive discussion.

To summarize, the reply offers a thorough rebuttal to the form and content of the question, but it ultimately serves to resolve the concern of the replier, not the original poster or the situation itself.

Finally, it’s 2024—customers have choices. If TELUS wants to retain its customers, they should listen to them. If this message falls into a gray area, including an unsubscribe link seems like common sense. It’s far better than forcing customers to search the web for unsubscribe links or wait on hold for an hour to solve their issues. What’s the point of not including a link? To make it harder for customers to unsubscribe? That approach doesn’t align with customer-centric practices.

[Skaimauve]

Thank you for articulating this so thoroughly; I agree with many of your points about the need for TELUS to prioritize customer convenience.

That said, I want to clarify that in my case, the process was even more frustrating than just "waiting on hold for an hour." It actually took over two hours to resolve the issue. The first attendant became frustrated and hung up on me, the second one transferred me to another department, and there was significant hold time at every stage. The final attendant was very helpful but had to consult with their manager to find a solution, which added even more time while digging for a solution.

What makes this even more ironic is that TELUS provides anti-spam services to protect customers from robocallers. They promote tools like Call Control [https://www.telus.com/en/support/article/call-control-explained] to block unwanted calls, yet they make it unnecessarily difficult for customers to opt out of their own unwanted emails. It’s a contradiction that undermines their commitment to customer care.

[jackrabbit000]

I received the same email.  In Gmail, I just clicked on the three dots on the top right corner, Report Spam then Block Sender. Done.  

[Skaimauve]

That’s a great suggestion—blocking the sender and reporting the email as spam is definitely an effective way to stop unwanted messages for many people, especially if the emails aren’t essential to their relationship with the company.

Unfortunately, this approach won’t work for me because I do receive bills from TELUS through email. I use a dedicated email address specifically for billing, so actionable items like invoices are easy to track. Blocking the sender would risk missing important communications, which isn’t a viable solution in my case.

That’s why I feel strongly that TELUS should include an unsubscribe link in emails like this. It provides a better, more customer-friendly way to manage preferences without creating extra complications.

[Rocky3]

I don't remember an email to sign a petition from Telus. Care to share the gist of it?

[Skaimauve]

Here it is:

Hi <customer>, demand more Internet choice today. 77% of Canadians agreed in a recent study to support action to create more competition among Internet providers. The federal government is trying to limit competition, restricting your choice. Share your voice. Sign the petition today!

https://www.change.org/p/your-internet-your-choice-e8e5f0a1-fe0b-4e73-b845-da7bd9287f49

[Rocky3]

@Mark1989 

Thanks for the link. I followed it to Change.org. I am now wondering if Change.Org sent this email and ask that you check the no reply email. If not from regular Telus email then that would explain why I did not get it as it is already blocked. It also explains why a non Telus user received the email.

If in fact Change.Org was asked to do this petition by Telus or someone saying they are Telus remains to be seen. A search on net discovers the order in council of November is banning Telus from further expansion in Ontario and Quebec which is long time Rogers territory. That is our current GOV meddling in compettition and the CRTC allowing Rogers to take over Shaw but prevent Telus from expanding.

[Skaimauve]

Thanks for the suggestion, @Rocky3, so I did investigate.

After checking the headers and sender information, it’s clear that the email was sent directly from TELUS, using their official domain and addresses. Here are some masked details from the headers for reference:

• Return-Path: [email protected]
• From: "TELUS" <[email protected]>
• Reply-To: [email protected]
• Received: via a TELUS-affiliated server (r239.info.telus.com)

The email appears legitimate, not from Change.org or any third-party service. This confirms that TELUS sent it directly, so it’s not an issue of impersonation or delegation to another organization.

Given this, the email’s alignment with TELUS’s brand and communication policies becomes even more important. It reinforces the need for TELUS to include an unsubscribe link and handle these types of communications with more transparency and customer care.

[Skaimauve]

I have also decided to follow up on the details you have provided @Rocky3, and after investigating the claims made in the petition, it’s clear that the situation isn’t as simple as TELUS's petition portrays it. I'm adding the info here because it's interesting for the conversation, and this is not meant to be a rebuttal to your post.

TELUS is not forbidden from expanding its services into Ontario and Quebec. In fact, the company has recently announced that they extended its PureFibre Internet offerings to these provinces, providing residents with high-speed connectivity.

https://www.telus.com/en/about/news-and-events/media-releases/telus-purefibre-internet-arrives-in-on...

While TELUS is permitted to expand, there are regulatory complexities that complicate their efforts. For example, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has implemented regulations requiring large providers like TELUS to grant smaller competitors access to their fibre-to-the-home networks in Ontario and Quebec. These measures aim to promote competition and offer consumers more choices, but TELUS may view them as limiting their business opportunities.

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/canada-regulator-expands-internet-network-sharing-pro...

[Rocky3]

[email protected] and [email protected] is where Telus bills come from. Do not block these and your bills will arrive.

@Skaimauve those emails snipets cannot be confirmed to Telus

[Skaimauve]

@Rock,

Here are the visible proofs in the raw email headers that confirm the email is from TELUS:

1. Sender Domain:

• The From address: "TELUS" <[email protected]> shows that the email appears to come from an official TELUS subdomain (info.telus.com).
• The Reply-To address: [email protected] also aligns with TELUS's domain structure.

2. DKIM-Signature:

• The DKIM-Signature in the headers includes:
  • d=info.telus.com: This indicates that the email was digitally signed using TELUS's domain.
  • This is a key authentication mechanism that ensures the email was authorized by TELUS and has not been altered in transit.

3. Return Path:

• The Return-Path is [email protected]. While this doesn't always prove authenticity, the domain email.telus.com is consistent with TELUS's official communication structure.

4. Received Servers:

• The email passed through r239.info.telus.com, which indicates that TELUS's infrastructure was involved in sending the message.

5. X-Hush Verified Domain:

• X-Hush-Verified-Domain: info.telus.com confirms that the Hushmail server verified the email as coming from the info.telus.com domain.

6. SPF/DKIM Validation (Implied by Receipt):

• If the receiving email server accepted the message without flagging it as spam, it likely validated the SPF or DKIM records for the TELUS domain. These records ensure that the message originated from authorized TELUS servers.

All elements coincide — From and Reply-To addresses, DKIM signature, return path, and receiving server details — and they strongly indicate that the email was sent by TELUS.

To further confirm, we could check the SPF validation or verify the DKIM signature using an email header analyzer. Should we do that?

[Rocky3]

Ok, not going to debate this any further. I am still trying to figure out how I sent myself a spam message, as the "from" email to a known spam/phish was my email address.

And as I said I must already block those addresses or my antispam is doing it for me as I did not get the petition email did not arrive in my inbox.