Comment by greyface-
3 years ago
§ 64.2007 (b): Except for use and disclosure of CPNI that is permitted without customer approval under § 64.2005, or that is described in this paragraph, or as otherwise provided in section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, a telecommunications carrier may only use, disclose, or permit access to its customer's individually identifiable CPNI subject to opt-in approval.
§ 64.2005 (a): Any telecommunications carrier may use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI for the purpose of providing or marketing service offerings among the categories of service (i.e., local, interexchange, and CMRS) to which the customer already subscribes from the same carrier, without customer approval.
Today's email: Fi may wish to provide you with additional information about products, services, and offers from our Alphabet affiliates, including Google LLC, that aren’t among the category of services you’re already purchasing from us
Google plans to advertise outside of the user's existing service category. § 64.2005 says that with opt-out consent, they can only do this within the existing service category. Since it doesn't fall under a § 64.2005 exemption, § 64.2007 (b) says that this requires opt-in approval.
You need to read further to § 64.2005(2) which covers other categories of services:
>(2) If a telecommunications carrier provides different categories of service, but a customer does not subscribe to more than one offering by the carrier, the carrier is not permitted to share CPNI with its affiliates, except as provided in § 64.2007(b).
And 64.2007(b) as we've already covered says that carriers can use opt-in or opt-out
Anyone with legal knowledge in this area care to chime in and break the impass?
Interesting argument. This relies on the circular backreference to § 64.2007(b) from § 64.2005(a)(2), and wouldn't seem to apply for the § 64.2005(a)(1) case. Google's messaging uses "opt in", which seems to be at odds with an intent to rely on an opt-out characterization.
I'd also welcome review from a lawyer with experience here.
Google customer communication could say 'unless you take action you will be shanghaied'.
Then it's easier to understand if their approach is allowed by the law -- seems yes.
Their consumer-facing terminology isn't what the law required. The law required one of two approaches, and they implemented the 'they default you in' one.