- Article 13(3) leaves the consent-or-opt-out choice for other direct-marketing cases to national legislation.
"determined by national legislation"
Check each campaign against Article 13 before sending automated calls, fax, email, SMS, stored messages, or similar electronic direct-marketing communications.
Use the checklist to record channel scope, sender identity, consent proof, existing-customer soft opt-in logic, opt-out handling, suppression records, and Member State caveats.
Structured answer sets in this page tree.
Cited legal and guidance references.
Article 13 is the EU starting point, but the send decision is channel-, recipient-, sender-, and country-specific. Prior consent is the baseline for automated calling systems without human intervention, fax, and used for direct marketing. The Article 13(2) soft opt-in is limited to electronic contact details obtained from customers in the context of a sale, used by the same natural or legal person for its own similar products or services, with a clear, free, easy objection opportunity at collection and in every message. National law controls other channels and the protection of legal persons.
Start by deciding whether the campaign uses automated calling systems without human intervention, fax, , or another unsolicited direct-marketing channel. The Directive defines electronic mail broadly enough to cover text, voice, sound, or image messages sent over a public communications network and stored until collection.
Record the product, service, audience, country coverage, sender entity, sending platform, and whether the journey also stores or accesses information on the recipient's device, such as tracking pixels, link identifiers, cookies, or app identifiers.
For automated calling systems without human intervention, fax, and used for direct marketing, the default Article 13 route is prior consent. Do not treat a generic privacy-policy acknowledgement, passive account creation, or pre-ticked preference as enough consent evidence.
For sent to existing customers, Article 13(2) supports a narrower route when the same sender collected the contact details in the context of a sale, markets its own similar products or services, and gave a clear, distinct, free, easy chance to object both when details were collected and in each later message.
Every electronic-mail marketing message relying on the existing-customer route needs a free and easy objection path in the message. The same opt-out control should also be checked for consent-based campaigns because withdrawal must be easy and the sender needs reliable suppression evidence.
Article 13 separately prohibits direct-marketing that disguises or conceals the sender identity, lacks a valid address for stop requests, or sends recipients to websites that contravene the e-commerce information rule referenced in the Directive.
Close the checklist only when the campaign record proves the selected route for each recipient segment. The record should let a reviewer see why a send happened, why a recipient was suppressed, and which jurisdiction-specific caveat still needs local validation.
The ePrivacy Directive particularises and complements the GDPR, and Member States implement and enforce national ePrivacy rules through national law. Avoid adding country-specific rules, penalties, authority names, or limitation periods unless those facts are separately supported by an official source for the country.
Sorena can help convert campaign facts into a cited Article 13 send record, consent-proof gap list, opt-out control check, and country-law validation queue.
Ask questions tied to cited sources about direct-marketing consent, Article 13 scope, soft opt-in facts, and evidence records using the cited sources on this page.
Check sender identity, consent proof, suppression handling, and national-law caveats before a marketing send.
"determined by national legislation"
"disguising or concealing the identity"
"own similar products or services"
"for the purposes of direct marketing"
"valid address"
"demonstrate that consent was obtained"
"technical scope of Art. 5(3)"
"future proof legal framework"