Under the current wording of the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill, any electronic message sent with marketing as "one of the purposes" would be in contravention of the law. Thus, business operators sending clients e-mails that incorporate features such as self-promotional advertisements, or even company logos and slogans, could face a fine of up to HK$1 million and five years' imprisonment.

ADVERTISEMENT

The revelation sparked concern Tuesday among local business coalitions, which argued that the bill should consider pre-existing business relationships and include exemptions for messages with "incidental" commercial purpose.

"Some recipients actually expect to receive messages and we believe an exception should be made for these transactional types of messages," said Anita Leung, who chairs the American Chamber of Commerce's intellectual property committee. "We need to leave room for companies to carry on business without fear of falling foul."

Leung's comments, made at a Legislative Council Bills Committee meeting Tuesday, were echoed by a number of other attending groups.

The Business Software Alliance added that the bill would effectively ban safety notices, such as product recall messages accompanied by a company's offer for replacement.

The Hong Kong Direct Marketing Association cited another example in business or charity newsletters that carry small advertisements.

But Assistant Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology Tony Li Yeuk-yue, while admitting the legislation contained "some gray areas" that needed further analysis, defended the bill's blanket approach as an adoption of the Australian model.

"The bill should apply to both solicited and unsolicited messages. We understand the concern about pre-existing relationships, but should we allow certain agreements to override the law?" he asked. Moreover, he pointed out, members of the public could always "opt-in" by sending individual letters of consent to particular companies.

But Leung said she worries the bill, which the government hopes to introduce early next year, is still far from complete. The proposal to allow individuals to sue companies for spam, for example, will lead to a flood of court cases brought on by consumers who have "suffered only minimal loss."

Under anti-spam legislation in the United States, only Internet service providers and government agencies can initiate lawsuits.

The Civic Party, in a written submission, demanded that the government clarify the bill's use of the terms "business" and "commercial," pointing out that many local organizations, including political parties, nongovernment organizations and charities, are registered under the Companies Ordinance.

Furthermore, the party said the bill committed a legal faux pas in failing to explicitly state its limits. "Do `electronic messages' apply to television or radio ads? Banners we find on the Internet? If not, how do we know?" asked party lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-wah.

Civic Party and Democratic Party legislators also urged the government to pursue cooperation with international telecommunications providers, to ensure that telemarketing companies making cold calls to residents traveling outside of Hong Kong are traced and charged for any roaming fees. However, Li continued to evade the issue, saying that of the 260 overseas providers linked to Hong Kong users, only a small fraction offer caller ID services.

And, in a sign the legislation may still need to undergo massive rewriting, the Consumer Council condemned the bill's very staple - a proposal for a territory-wide "do not call" register under which individuals can sign up to request a block on all unsolicited mobile text messages, faxes or pre-recorded phone calls. Instead, council chief executive Pamela Chan Wong-shui said businesses should only be allowed to send messages to citizens who register under a "do call" list.

The Bills Committee will meet again on October 31 to hear the government's response.