PCPD - Successful conviction against a magazine marketing company

Date: 27 June 2007

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.

[Image of Back][Image of Archive]