When Video Cameras Watch and screen: Privacy implications of pattern recognition technology
European ruling on identification of businesses in e-commerce
European e-commerce websites are generally subject to the provisions of the eCommerce Directive, which contains a number of obligations for so-called information society service providers. One of these is the obligation to clearly and easily identify themselves to users of the service and to administrations. As a part of this obligation, they must also provide contact information, "including his electronic mail address, which allow him to be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner" (article 5.1(c) of the Directive).
However, a German insurance agent operating exclusively in an on-line environment only offered an e-mail address and a contact form; a phone number was not given to visitors of the site until an insurance contract was sold. This was considered inadequate by a German consumer organisation, who took the insurance agent to court. The German court then asked the European Court of Justice to clarify if the publication of a phone number on the website was also necessary to meet the requirement of article 5.1(c), or whether a mail address was sufficient.
According to the ruling of the Court of Justice, "Article 5(1)(c) of the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a service provider is required to supply to recipients of the service, before the conclusion of a contract with them, in addition to its electronic mail address, other information which allows the service provider to be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner. That information does not necessarily have to be a telephone number. That information may be in the form of an electronic enquiry template through which the recipients of the service can contact the service provider via the internet, to whom the service provider replies by electronic mail except in situations where a recipient of the service, who, after contacting the service provider electronically, finds himself without access to the electronic network, requests the latter to provide access to another, non‑electronic means of communication."
Thus, the Court finds that a telephone number is not strictly required. However, an alternative to e-mail should be offered, which may even simply be through personal contact at the premises of the service provider. The Court finds that this follows from a literal interpretation of the expression "including his electronic mail address". Parallel-simultaneous communication is not required in the Court's opinion, and contact forms would thus also be an adequate alternative to e-mail, provided that the response is given in a reasonably quick fashion and that the customer can choose not to be contacted via e-mail only.