ICO (UK) - Dr Telemarketing: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{DPAdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=United Kingdom |DPA-BG-Color=background-color:#023868; |DPAlogo=LogoUK.png |DPA_Abbrevation=ICO |DPA_With_Country=ICO (UK) |Case_Number_Name=Dr Telemarketing |ECLI= |Original_Source_Name_1=Dr Telemarketing - Enforcement Notice |Original_Source_Link_1=https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/enforcement/dr-telemarketing-enforcement-notice/ |Original_Source_Language_1=English |Original_Source_Language__Code_1=EN |Original_Source_Name_2= |Origi...") |
|||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
=== Facts === | === Facts === | ||
DRT, formerly known as 'The Telemarketing Company Limited' until December 23, 2020, is a telemarketing firm that engaged in unsolicited direct marketing practices. Between February 11, 2021, and March 22, 2022, the company utilised public telecommunication services to make at least 80,240 unwanted calls to individuals registered with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) for marketing purposes. | DRT, formerly known as 'The Telemarketing Company Limited' until December 23, 2020, is a telemarketing firm that engaged in unsolicited direct marketing practices. Between February 11, 2021, and March 22, 2022, the company utilised public telecommunication services to make at least 80,240 unwanted calls to individuals registered with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) for marketing purposes. | ||
These calls were related to a product called 'Lotto Express.' The data employed for making these calls originated from third-party sources and did not comply with the requirements set forth in Regulation 21 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulation (PECR). | These calls were related to a product called 'Lotto Express.' The data employed for making these calls originated from third-party sources and did not comply with the requirements set forth in Regulation 21 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulation (PECR). | ||
Throughout the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) investigation, DRT's responses were inconsistent and lacked transparency. Some responses were signed off as "Dr Telemarketing" instead of providing the name of the correspondent, which further contributed to the lack of clarity. | Throughout the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) investigation, DRT's responses were inconsistent and lacked transparency. Some responses were signed off as "Dr Telemarketing" instead of providing the name of the correspondent, which further contributed to the lack of clarity. | ||
Despite repeated attempts by the ICO to communicate with the company, DRT ceased engaging with the investigation and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the Lotto Express calls. | Despite repeated attempts by the ICO to communicate with the company, DRT ceased engaging with the investigation and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the Lotto Express calls. | ||
Moreover, according to the ICO's findings, the calls made by DRT targeted vulnerable individuals with the intent of maximising profits, exacerbating the severity of the contravention. | Moreover, according to the ICO's findings, the calls made by DRT targeted vulnerable individuals with the intent of maximising profits, exacerbating the severity of the contravention. | ||
| Line 95: | Line 98: | ||
The Commissioner finds that the controller contravened Regulation 21 of PECR. | The Commissioner finds that the controller contravened Regulation 21 of PECR. | ||
In response to the unsolicited direct marketing practices employed by the controller, the ICO has issued a fine of £100,000. Additionally, an enforcement notice has been served, requiring the controller to immediately cease making calls to subscribers who have registered with the TPS or have previously objected to receiving marketing calls. | In response to the unsolicited direct marketing practices employed by the controller, the ICO has issued a fine of £100,000. Additionally, an enforcement notice has been served, requiring the controller to immediately cease making calls to subscribers who have registered with the TPS or have previously objected to receiving marketing calls. | ||
According to the Commissioner, for the purposes of Regulation 21, these unsolicited direct marketing calls were made to subscribers who had registered with the TPS at least 28 days prior to receiving the calls, and who had not provided valid notification indicating their willingness to receive such calls. | According to the Commissioner, for the purposes of Regulation 21, these unsolicited direct marketing calls were made to subscribers who had registered with the TPS at least 28 days prior to receiving the calls, and who had not provided valid notification indicating their willingness to receive such calls. | ||
For a notification to be considered valid under Regulation 21(4), the individual must have taken a clear and positive action to override their TPS registration and explicitly demonstrate their consent to receive marketing calls from the company. The notification should reflect the individual's choice about whether or not they are willing to receive marketing calls. In cases where the use of a product or service is conditional upon receiving marketing calls, companies must provide evidence demonstrating how this constitutes a clear and positive notification of the individual's willingness to receive such calls. | For a notification to be considered valid under Regulation 21(4), the individual must have taken a clear and positive action to override their TPS registration and explicitly demonstrate their consent to receive marketing calls from the company. The notification should reflect the individual's choice about whether or not they are willing to receive marketing calls. In cases where the use of a product or service is conditional upon receiving marketing calls, companies must provide evidence demonstrating how this constitutes a clear and positive notification of the individual's willingness to receive such calls. | ||
The notification must clearly indicate the individual's willingness to receive marketing calls specifically from the company in question. Companies cannot rely on individuals opting in to marketing communications generally, unless it is explicitly stated that this includes telephone calls. Furthermore, notifications will not be valid if individuals are asked to agree to receive marketing calls from "similar organisations," "partners," "selected third parties," or other generic descriptions. | The notification must clearly indicate the individual's willingness to receive marketing calls specifically from the company in question. Companies cannot rely on individuals opting in to marketing communications generally, unless it is explicitly stated that this includes telephone calls. Furthermore, notifications will not be valid if individuals are asked to agree to receive marketing calls from "similar organisations," "partners," "selected third parties," or other generic descriptions. | ||
The controller failed to provide any evidence that the TPS-registered individuals had provided notification indicating their willingness to receive marketing calls from the company. | |||
The enforcement notice requires the controller to comply within 30 days of the notice's date. They shall neither use nor instigate the use of a public electronic communications service for the purposes of making unsolicited calls for direct marketing purposes where the called line belongs to a subscriber who has previously provided notification that such calls should not be made on that line or a subscriber who has registered their number with the TPS at least 28 days previously and who has not provided notification that they do not object to such calls being made. | The controller failed to provide any evidence that the TPS-registered individuals had provided notification indicating their willingness to receive marketing calls from the company. The enforcement notice requires the controller to comply within 30 days of the notice's date. They shall neither use nor instigate the use of a public electronic communications service for the purposes of making unsolicited calls for direct marketing purposes where the called line belongs to a subscriber who has previously provided notification that such calls should not be made on that line or a subscriber who has registered their number with the TPS at least 28 days previously and who has not provided notification that they do not object to such calls being made. | ||
== Comment == | == Comment == | ||
Latest revision as of 14:38, 21 May 2024
| ICO - Dr Telemarketing | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | ICO (UK) |
| Jurisdiction: | United Kingdom |
| Relevant Law: | §1 Regulation 2 PECR §1 Regulation 21 PECR §2 Regulation 21 PECR §3 Regulation 21 PECR §4 Regulation 21 PECR §5 Regulation 21 PECR §5 Section 122 DPA 2018 Regulation 26 PECR Section 40 DPA 2018 Section 55C DPA 2018 |
| Type: | Investigation |
| Outcome: | Violation Found |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | 15.02.2024 |
| Published: | 23.04.2024 |
| Fine: | 100,000 GBP |
| Parties: | Dr Telemarketing Ltd ICO |
| National Case Number/Name: | Dr Telemarketing |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | English |
| Original Source: | Dr Telemarketing - Enforcement Notice (in EN) |
| Initial Contributor: | Maria Chiara Zaccaria |
The ICO issued an Enforcement Notice and 100,000 GBP fine against a controller due to unsolicited direct marketing calls to individuals who were on the 'do not call' list.
English Summary
Facts
DRT, formerly known as 'The Telemarketing Company Limited' until December 23, 2020, is a telemarketing firm that engaged in unsolicited direct marketing practices. Between February 11, 2021, and March 22, 2022, the company utilised public telecommunication services to make at least 80,240 unwanted calls to individuals registered with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) for marketing purposes.
These calls were related to a product called 'Lotto Express.' The data employed for making these calls originated from third-party sources and did not comply with the requirements set forth in Regulation 21 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulation (PECR).
Throughout the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) investigation, DRT's responses were inconsistent and lacked transparency. Some responses were signed off as "Dr Telemarketing" instead of providing the name of the correspondent, which further contributed to the lack of clarity.
Despite repeated attempts by the ICO to communicate with the company, DRT ceased engaging with the investigation and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the Lotto Express calls. Moreover, according to the ICO's findings, the calls made by DRT targeted vulnerable individuals with the intent of maximising profits, exacerbating the severity of the contravention.
Holding
The Commissioner finds that the controller contravened Regulation 21 of PECR. In response to the unsolicited direct marketing practices employed by the controller, the ICO has issued a fine of £100,000. Additionally, an enforcement notice has been served, requiring the controller to immediately cease making calls to subscribers who have registered with the TPS or have previously objected to receiving marketing calls.
According to the Commissioner, for the purposes of Regulation 21, these unsolicited direct marketing calls were made to subscribers who had registered with the TPS at least 28 days prior to receiving the calls, and who had not provided valid notification indicating their willingness to receive such calls.
For a notification to be considered valid under Regulation 21(4), the individual must have taken a clear and positive action to override their TPS registration and explicitly demonstrate their consent to receive marketing calls from the company. The notification should reflect the individual's choice about whether or not they are willing to receive marketing calls. In cases where the use of a product or service is conditional upon receiving marketing calls, companies must provide evidence demonstrating how this constitutes a clear and positive notification of the individual's willingness to receive such calls.
The notification must clearly indicate the individual's willingness to receive marketing calls specifically from the company in question. Companies cannot rely on individuals opting in to marketing communications generally, unless it is explicitly stated that this includes telephone calls. Furthermore, notifications will not be valid if individuals are asked to agree to receive marketing calls from "similar organisations," "partners," "selected third parties," or other generic descriptions.
The controller failed to provide any evidence that the TPS-registered individuals had provided notification indicating their willingness to receive marketing calls from the company. The enforcement notice requires the controller to comply within 30 days of the notice's date. They shall neither use nor instigate the use of a public electronic communications service for the purposes of making unsolicited calls for direct marketing purposes where the called line belongs to a subscriber who has previously provided notification that such calls should not be made on that line or a subscriber who has registered their number with the TPS at least 28 days previously and who has not provided notification that they do not object to such calls being made.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the English original. Please refer to the English original for more details.
The ICO exists to empower you through information.
