Papa don't breach: UK data watchdog fines that other pizza place £10,000 over unsolicited marketing blitz
(2021/06/16)
- Reference: 1623845004
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/06/16/papa_johns_ico_fine/
- Source link:
Pizza takeaway and delivery outfit Papa John's has been fined £10,000 by the UK's data watchdog for sending marketing fluff to punters without their say-so.
Following a year-long investigation, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) found that the company had sent 168,022 "nuisance marketing messages to its customers without the valid consent required by law."
One of the unnamed complainants said they had "never [given their] consent for marketing text messages" resulting in "distress."
[1]
Another said they had received almost 100 messages in what was described as the "textbook definition of harassment."
[2]
[3]
The case hinges on rules in the [4]Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) 2003 .
In particular, the ICO found that Papa John's was relying on the "soft opt-in" exemption to send marketing texts and emails.
[5]
The "soft opt-in" exemption – for those unfamiliar with Regulation 22(3) PECR – means that organisations can send marketing messages by text and email to individuals whose details they've obtained in the course or negotiation of a sale, and in respect of similar products and services.
However, the organisation must also give the person a "simple opportunity to refuse or opt out of the marketing," both when first collecting the details and in every message after that.
This, [6]ruled the regulator [PDF], was the snag.
[7]
"The law is clear and simple," said Andy Curry, ICO Head of Investigations. "When relying on the 'soft opt-in' exemption, companies must give customers a clear chance to opt out of their marketing when they collect the customers' details.
[8]Conservative Party fined one-third of a luxury food hamper by ICO for nuisance email campaign
[9]UK data regulator fines American Express up to 0.021p per email after opted-out folk spammed 4.1 million times
[10]UK data watchdog fines 'pandemic partner' biz £8k: It sent 84,000 marketing emails to people who'd given info for track and trace
[11]Keeping up the PECR: ICO fines two marketing text pests £330k for sending 2.6 million messages
"Papa John's telephone customers were not given the opportunity to refuse marketing at the point of contact, which has led to this fine."
A Papa John's spokesperson told The Register : "Clearly, our intention was to reach only those potentially interested in our offers and we apologise unreservedly to any customers who were inconvenienced. Since this happened, we have performed a thorough review to ensure that we have got the correct permission from those we contact."
In May, [12]American Express was fined £90,000 by the ICO after spamming people who opted out of its marketing emails with 4.1 million unwanted messages.
In the same month, the [13]ICO fined Tested.me Ltd of St Albans £8,000 for sending 84,000 direct marketing emails without consent to people who had provided their personal data for contact-tracing purposes. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YMogISpUYOoqo-OQui@3qQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YMogISpUYOoqo-OQui@3qQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YMogISpUYOoqo-OQui@3qQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/regulation/22/made
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YMogISpUYOoqo-OQui@3qQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/mpns/2619969/papa-johns-gb-limited-mpn.pdf
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YMogISpUYOoqo-OQui@3qQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/03/conservative_party_fined_one_third/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/20/amex_fine_50m_spam/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/19/ico_tested_me_fine/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/08/ico/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/20/amex_fine_50m_spam/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/19/ico_tested_me_fine/
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Following a year-long investigation, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) found that the company had sent 168,022 "nuisance marketing messages to its customers without the valid consent required by law."
One of the unnamed complainants said they had "never [given their] consent for marketing text messages" resulting in "distress."
[1]
Another said they had received almost 100 messages in what was described as the "textbook definition of harassment."
[2]
[3]
The case hinges on rules in the [4]Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) 2003 .
In particular, the ICO found that Papa John's was relying on the "soft opt-in" exemption to send marketing texts and emails.
[5]
The "soft opt-in" exemption – for those unfamiliar with Regulation 22(3) PECR – means that organisations can send marketing messages by text and email to individuals whose details they've obtained in the course or negotiation of a sale, and in respect of similar products and services.
However, the organisation must also give the person a "simple opportunity to refuse or opt out of the marketing," both when first collecting the details and in every message after that.
This, [6]ruled the regulator [PDF], was the snag.
[7]
"The law is clear and simple," said Andy Curry, ICO Head of Investigations. "When relying on the 'soft opt-in' exemption, companies must give customers a clear chance to opt out of their marketing when they collect the customers' details.
[8]Conservative Party fined one-third of a luxury food hamper by ICO for nuisance email campaign
[9]UK data regulator fines American Express up to 0.021p per email after opted-out folk spammed 4.1 million times
[10]UK data watchdog fines 'pandemic partner' biz £8k: It sent 84,000 marketing emails to people who'd given info for track and trace
[11]Keeping up the PECR: ICO fines two marketing text pests £330k for sending 2.6 million messages
"Papa John's telephone customers were not given the opportunity to refuse marketing at the point of contact, which has led to this fine."
A Papa John's spokesperson told The Register : "Clearly, our intention was to reach only those potentially interested in our offers and we apologise unreservedly to any customers who were inconvenienced. Since this happened, we have performed a thorough review to ensure that we have got the correct permission from those we contact."
In May, [12]American Express was fined £90,000 by the ICO after spamming people who opted out of its marketing emails with 4.1 million unwanted messages.
In the same month, the [13]ICO fined Tested.me Ltd of St Albans £8,000 for sending 84,000 direct marketing emails without consent to people who had provided their personal data for contact-tracing purposes. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YMogISpUYOoqo-OQui@3qQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YMogISpUYOoqo-OQui@3qQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YMogISpUYOoqo-OQui@3qQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/regulation/22/made
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YMogISpUYOoqo-OQui@3qQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/mpns/2619969/papa-johns-gb-limited-mpn.pdf
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YMogISpUYOoqo-OQui@3qQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/03/conservative_party_fined_one_third/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/20/amex_fine_50m_spam/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/19/ico_tested_me_fine/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/08/ico/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/20/amex_fine_50m_spam/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/19/ico_tested_me_fine/
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Fined 10 Grand?
Ramis101
I'm sure the person that got spammed nearly a hundred times is completely satisfied with this outcome.
It should have been a grand/recorded or reported spam, 10k is just small change.
Re: Fined 10 Grand?
DJO
About 10p per infraction seems to be the ICO rule.
Woefully inadequate, 10p per transaction is not a penalty, it's an ongoing business cost and far cheaper than sending out mailings.
The fine for this sort of thing should be at least the current rate for a 1st class stamp per infraction.
Our intention was to reach only those potentially interested in our offers
Warm Braw
I guess the golden rule of marketing is "first delude yourself"...
Business as usual
ThatOne
Literally.
Spam generously, if caught emit some canned statement about the well-being of your victims customers being very important for your digestion, pay a small fine, and life goes on.
Even the most stupid marketing critter has realized by now that, even at an 1:10000 success ratio, spam is a cheap and efficient way to catch a few additional customers.
Someone really should start Uncle Enzo's Pizzas
Sam Therapy
"We'll make you a pizza you can't refuse"
"Papa don't breach"
Brilliant!