A model will draft a competent issue in minutes. Consent, identification and the unsubscribe mechanism are what actually govern whether you may send it, and none of those is a writing problem.
Key takeaways
Use AI to compress the drafting cycle — outline, first draft, plain-language pass, subject-line variants — and keep every compliance decision with a person. A firm newsletter is a commercial electronic message. Under section 6(1) of CASL it may not be sent to an electronic address unless the recipient has consented, expressly or by implication, and the message itself complies with subsection 6(2). Subsection 6(2) requires prescribed identifying information, a way to readily contact you, and an unsubscribe mechanism. A language model has no visibility into any of that.
Put differently: the risk in a firm newsletter has never been the prose. It is who is on the list, what the footer says, and whether the claims in paragraph three can be substantiated. AI helps with none of those and can quietly make the third one worse, because a fluent draft is a persuasive draft.
The CRTC’s Electronic Commerce Protection Regulations set out the required contents. Section 2 requires the name under which you carry on business (or your name), the name of any person on whose behalf the message is sent together with a statement identifying which is which, and a mailing address plus one of a telephone number reaching an agent or voice messaging system, an email address, or a web address. Section 2(2) allows that information and the unsubscribe mechanism to sit on a readily accessible web page instead, at no cost to the reader, reached by a link that is clearly and prominently set out in the message. Section 3 requires all of it to be set out clearly and prominently and the unsubscribe to be readily performed.
Section 11 of CASL then governs the mechanism itself. It must let the reader indicate, at no cost, that they no longer wish to receive commercial electronic messages, using the same electronic means the message arrived by or another practicable electronic means; it must specify an electronic address or a web page; that address or page must stay valid for at least 60 days after the message is sent; and effect must be given without delay and in any event no later than 10 business days, with no further action required by the reader. Section 6(3) imposes the same 60-day validity on the contact information in the message.
Treadstone Law’s note on unsubscribe requirements for Ontario businesses covers how this plays out in practice. None of it is generated content — it is template and platform configuration, done once.
Consent is either express or implied, and implied consent is narrower than most firms assume. Under subsection 10(9) of CASL, consent is implied only where there is an existing business relationship or an existing non-business relationship, or where the recipient conspicuously published the address without a statement refusing unsolicited commercial messages and the message is relevant to their business role, or where they disclosed the address to you in the same circumstances. Subsection 10(10) defines an existing business relationship by reference to specific triggers within defined periods — a purchase or lease within the two-year period immediately before the message, among others.
Two consequences follow. First, a scraped list is not a list. Second, implied consent expires, so a newsletter that grows only by inertia will eventually be sent to people you have no basis to send to. Treadstone Law sets out the distinction in implied versus express consent, and the frequently misread business-to-business exemption. The CRTC’s own CASL material is the regulator’s starting point.
A newsletter promotes a business interest, so section 74.01 of the Competition Act applies to it. Paragraph (1)(a) reaches a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect. Paragraph (1)(b) reaches a statement, warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product that is not based on an adequate and proper test — and the section says in terms that the proof of that test lies on the person making the representation. Subsection (1.1) treats a price that is not attainable because of fixed obligatory charges as false or misleading.
This is where generated copy causes real trouble, because a model will happily produce a confident comparative claim that nobody at the firm can substantiate. Strip superlatives at the review stage as a matter of routine.
If you are licensed, a further layer applies. For an Ontario lawyer, rule 4.2-1 of the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct permits marketing of legal services only if it is demonstrably true, accurate and verifiable; is neither misleading, confusing nor deceptive nor likely to be; and is in the best interests of the public and consistent with a high standard of professionalism. The commentary lists specific traps — stating amounts recovered without the qualifying statement, suggesting qualitative superiority, raising expectations, and referring to awards or rankings that are not bona fide. Accountants, engineers and brokers work under their own regulator’s version of the same idea; check yours rather than assuming.
A nine-person Ontario accounting firm sends a monthly note to clients and to contacts who asked to be added at seminars. The partner responsible drafts it in an evening, which is why it has been late four months running.
The change is narrow. The firm keeps a folder of its own published material. Each month a model produces four candidate items from that folder, each quoting the source paragraph it was derived from. The partner picks three, verifies the quoted source, and rewrites the lead sentence in the firm’s voice. Two claims are cut at the claims-register step because nobody can point to a source for them. The footer and unsubscribe are untouched. Consent basis for the seminar contacts is checked against the implied-consent window in subsection 10(10), and eleven contacts are moved to an express-consent request rather than being mailed.
Measure the countable things: issues sent on schedule, claims cut at review, unsubscribe complaints, and corrections issued after publication. Not hours saved — that is unverifiable and makes a poor business case.
This page is written for a firm that delivers work to a book of clients. If the question is really about the front desk — intake, scheduling, recall, reminders — that lives on the professional practice owners page. If it is about your own month-end, reconciliation and payables rather than client deliverables, that is accounting automation. The two overlap on tooling and almost never on risk.
Do we have to say the newsletter was written with AI?
CASL does not require it. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s principles for generative AI ask organisations to ensure that outputs which could have a significant impact on a person are meaningfully identified as AI-created; a general firm newsletter is not usually in that category. Many firms disclose anyway, and a partner’s name against each item does more for trust than a disclaimer does.
Can AI manage the unsubscribes?
Your sending platform does that, and it should. The 10-business-day rule in subsection 11(3) is absolute and admits no further action on the reader’s part, so it belongs in software that logs it, not in a workflow that depends on someone reading a reply.
We only email business contacts. Does CASL still apply?
Yes. There are narrow exceptions in subsections 6(5) and 6(6) — for example a message consisting solely of an inquiry related to the recipient’s commercial activity — but a promotional newsletter is not one of them. Treadstone Law’s note on the B2B exemption explains why it is narrower than the name suggests. Treat a client alert about a new rule the same way unless you have advice that it is not commercial.
A 30-minute call is enough to tell you whether AI pays for itself here.
