well, i guess this email constitutes "affirmative, express consent" unless user clicks on opt-out. at least this is conclusion of google legal department.
Affirmative means the user has to take an action to consent. Not doing something for 30 days isn't an affirmative action - it's known as "implicit consent" which is the opposite of "affirmative consent"[1]
Express means they have to specifically consent and can't be implied to consent or consent passively somehow.[2]
This is neither affirmative nor express consent. Also notice that literally nothing that Google (or any company) can do gives affirmative, express consent from the user. The user themselves has to do something for Google to obtain that consent - that's literally the whole point of the wording of "affirmative, express".
I'd be very surprised if google's legal thinks this is actually consent or ok. I think most likely they said it probably wouldn't stand up to challenge and the McKinsey types who run google decided they probably wouldn't be challenged and it was worth the risk.
It's not as there's no guarantee the subscriber ever actually received the email much less made it past their spam filter or that they opened it and read it.
It's not. Federal regulations require "affirmative, express consent" for CPNI release approval to count as "opt-in". https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2018-title47-vol3/xm...
well, i guess this email constitutes "affirmative, express consent" unless user clicks on opt-out. at least this is conclusion of google legal department.
Affirmative means the user has to take an action to consent. Not doing something for 30 days isn't an affirmative action - it's known as "implicit consent" which is the opposite of "affirmative consent"[1]
Express means they have to specifically consent and can't be implied to consent or consent passively somehow.[2]
This is neither affirmative nor express consent. Also notice that literally nothing that Google (or any company) can do gives affirmative, express consent from the user. The user themselves has to do something for Google to obtain that consent - that's literally the whole point of the wording of "affirmative, express".
I'd be very surprised if google's legal thinks this is actually consent or ok. I think most likely they said it probably wouldn't stand up to challenge and the McKinsey types who run google decided they probably wouldn't be challenged and it was worth the risk.
[1] https://iapp.org/resources/article/consent-2/
[2] https://www.wilsonlaw.com/blog/difference-between-express-an...
1 reply →
>this email constitutes "affirmative, express consent" unless user clicks on opt-out.
No. That would be (by definition) negative, implicit consent.
Federal law specifically demands "affirmative, express" consent.
It's not as there's no guarantee the subscriber ever actually received the email much less made it past their spam filter or that they opened it and read it.
I can't see any way this is "opt-in".
2 replies →
The parallel on a website would require a clickwrap, I think they're just being bold and hoping nobody notices and/or they want the suit.
Well it's not. Google hates that.
1 reply →