Not for the first time, a campaigning politician has demonstrated worrying ignorance of basic rules governing telephone marketing and literally paid the price. Stephen Groom reports on a £5,000 fine imposed on David Lammy MP.
In September 2013 the UK’s data watchdog published its first “Direct Marketing Guidance.” This upset the direct marketing fraternity with stricter approaches in various areas. Now an updated version has appeared. What are the key changes? Georgina Graham reports.
A customer terminating his insurance by email got two auto replies. The second was triggered by his complaint to the insurer’s data protection officer about the first one. Stephan Bahner reports on the ensuing litigation.
On the day of the 2015 UK general election Telegraph Media Group emailed a letter to thousands of recipients which urged recipients to vote Conservative. Seventeen recipients complained, but didn’t “soft opt-in” come to the broadsheet publisher’s rescue? George Garrard reports.
The third edition of ICO’s guidance on its approach to the issuing of penalties of up to £500,000 was out of date on publication. Chloe Deng investigates how this happened and asks whether, despite this, it is still worth a read.
From 6 April 2015, the ICO can fine nuisance marketers up to £500,000 without establishing likely substantial damage or substantial distress, but what types of marketing will this extend to and what must ICO still establish? Stephen Groom reports.
It now seems probable that the threshold for six figure penalties to be issued for breaches of privacy and electronic communications laws will be lowered dramatically very soon. But will the change extend to emails and cookies? Stephen Groom reports.
The Direct Marketing Association was not comfortable with elements of the UK data regulator’s September 2013 guidance for direct marketers on data protection law compliance. Now following discussions with ICO, the trade body has published clarification. Mark Smith reports.
