Successful
conviction against a magazine marketing company
1. A magazine marketing company (the Company) was
convicted of breaching section 34(1) (ii) and section 64 (10) of the
Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (the Ordinance) and was fined $6,000
today (27 June) in the Eastern Magistrates' Courts.
2. The Acting Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data,
Mrs. Bonnie Smith, commented on the case: "The Ordinance provides that
when a data user approaches a data subject for the first time for
direct marketing purposes, the data subject has the right to request
the data user to cease using his personal data for the same purpose in
future. Unfortunately, many complaints revealed that data users
do not treat such requests seriously. I hope that data users will
learn from this conviction and handle personal data in a serious manner
by taking adequate steps to ensure compliance with the provisions of
the Ordinance."
3. In October 2005, the complainant subscribed a
magazine through the Company. From November 2005 to March 2006,
the complainant received three telephone calls from the sales
representatives of the Company for the purpose of selling
magazines. On all three occasions, the complainant had made
"opt-out" requests explicitly over the phone, i.e. asked the Company
not to contact him in future for direct marketing purposes. The
Company agreed to process the complainant’s requests by removing his
data from their call list. However, the complainant continued to
receive promotional calls from the Company on 26 October and 2 November
2006.
4. After investigation, the Company was summonsed for
two offences under section 34(1) (ii) of the Ordinance, which requires
data users to cease further contact with the individual if the
individual chooses to opt-out. Contravention of section 34 of the
Ordinance is an offence under section 64(10) of the Ordinance.
5. This is the fourth conviction case under section 34
since the enactment of the Ordinance. The last conviction of a
similar offence was against a telecommunications company in January
2007, which resulted in a fine of $14,000.
Back
to top
