UK Fines Security Firms For Illegal Direct Marketing

Author: Charles Rollet, Published on Jan 16, 2019

Two UK security firms have paid over $200,000 in fines for illegally making hundreds of thousands of calls to people registered on a government no-call list.

Some of the calls included dubious claims of local crime waves or “free” equipment with hefty installation prices, according to complaints reviewed by IPVM.

In this note, we examine:

  • Who Was Fined & Why
  • Complaints Reveal Spammy, Misleading Calls
  • Total Fines Paid
  • Why They Thought They'd Get Away with It
  • Response from Government + Firms
  • US Comparison
  • Shady Sales Tactics in Home Security
  • GDPR Context

Because the illegal activity took place before GDPR implementation, the new regulation played no role in this case. However, the fines are a reminder of the legal risks of direct marketing and the possibility of even stricter government enforcement/fines for violations occurring after the GDPR.

Case Background

According to the ICO, the UK government data regulator:

  • A.C.T. Response of Middlesbrough made 496,455 illegal direct marketing calls between January 2017 and February 2018

The calls were made to phone numbers registered with to Telephone Preference Service (TPS), a government registry which bans unsolicited marketing calls.

Neither firm screened the numbers they called up against the TPS registry before making the calls, a practice that is illegal in the UK.

Constant Spammy, Misleading Calls

The calls sparked a flood of complaints to the ICO. Some complaints mentioned that callers from SHS, in particular, made doubtful claims about crime waves and hefty install fees.

ACT Response Complaint:

image

SHS Complaints:

Total Fines Paid

ICO deemed these calls and the companies’ ignoring of hundreds of complaints a clear violation of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations or PECR of 2003.

In October 2018, A.C.T. Response was fined £140,000 (~$180,000) and SHS was fined £80,000 (~$102,000).

By accepting the verdict and paying early, the firms ultimately paid a reduced fine of £112,000 ($143,000) and £64,000 ($82,000) respectively, the ICO confirmed to IPVM.

Both firms ceased all direct marketing calls once the ICO began its investigation, said the ICO.

Why They Thought They'd Get Away With It

A.C.T. Response used a variety of tactics to evade detection, the ICO stated, such as getting its sister company to actually make the calls and telling its cold callers how to deal with people on the TPS list.

According to the ICO, SHS did not use such "deliberate" evasion tactics, although it did find the firm "negligent" for ignoring publicly-available ICO guidance on direct marketing.

Response from ICO

The ICO released a statement about the two cases, warning other companies against such practices:

These fines should set alarm bells ringing and deter marketing companies across all sectors that are contacting people without their consent. It is a company’s responsibility to make sure that it has valid consent to make these calls. The TPS is there for a reason – to protect people’s privacy and ensure that marketing companies obey the law. Marketing companies failing to take the basic step of checking TPS can expect robust enforcement.

Response from Security Firms

IPVM contacted both firms about these fines asking specifically why they decided to rely so heavily on direct marketing, but received no response.

UK Direct Marketing Context

Getting fined for violating the TPS registry is not uncommon in the UK. Just 3 weeks after these fines, the ICO fined two other (non-security) firms for making over 1 million illegal calls to TPS subscribers. However, IPVM couldn't find such fines being applied to other UK security firms recently.

US Comparison

Direct marketing is also regulated by the government in the US, which has a similar list to TPS called the National Do Not Call Registry. Violators of the registry can technically be fined over $40,000 per call by the FTC.

Last spring, the FTC filed charges against Alliance Security Inc., a home security firm, for making "more than a million" unauthorized calls to people on the registry. The case is ongoing but has been temporarily halted due to the government shutdown.

Shady Sales Tactics Not New to Home Security

In the UK, local authorities in Hampshire County have warned residents against cold calls from unspecified home alarm firms who could be gathering data or selling unnecessary systems. The BBC has also investigated one UK security firm whose salespeople made a number of false claims, including that they had police security clearance.

In the US, the FTC has warned that "Some Home Security Systems May Be Scams", stating that:

They may use scare tactics. For example, they may talk about a rash of supposed burglaries in your neighborhood.

Direct Marketing and GDPR

Since the security firms’ direct marketing calls took place before GDPR implementation on May 25, 2018, this case was not tried with the new law in force.

However, the case is a good reminder that the GDPR Article 21 establishes a clear right for data subjects to object to direct marketing, stating:

Where the data subject objects to processing for direct marketing purposes, the personal data shall no longer be processed for such purposes.

That means direct marketing violations taking place after May 25, if done on a particularly egregious scale, could reach the significantly higher monetary penalties levied by the GDPR – a maximum of 4% of annual revenue or 20 million euros ($23 million). That’s something any integrator considering direct marketing should take note of.

Comments (2) : PRO Members only. Login. or Join.

Related Reports

Ex-Integrator Now Growth Strategist Interviewed on Apr 24, 2019
For more than a decade, Scot MacTaggart was a security integrator (at PA-based PSX). In late 2018, he left the industry. He is now a Growth...
The Embarrassing Story of ISC West's Best New IP Camera on Apr 24, 2019
A sad but simple situation: Only 2 companies paid SIA the thousands of dollars required to compete for the best new 'cameras IP' The judges...
19 Facial Recognition Providers Profiled on Apr 23, 2019
IPVM interviewed 19 facial recognition providers at ISC West to understand their claimed accuracy, success and positioning. 9 from China, where...
Speco Ultra Intensifier Tested on Apr 22, 2019
While ISC West 2019 named Speco's Ultra Intensifier the best new "Video Surveillance Cameras IP", IPVM testing shows the camera suffers from...
Securadyne CEO: IPVM 'Entertaining For An Ignorant Few' on Apr 16, 2019
Securadyne's CEO Carey Boethel is unhappy with IPVM's report - Failed Integrator Rollup, Securadyne Sells to Guard Giant Allied. Indeed, he...
Alarm.com Favorability Results 2019 on Apr 15, 2019
The once dot com startup has evolved to become a core provider for home security and is now expanding into commercial. In their first entry in...
UK Camera Commissioner Calls for Regulating Facial Recognition on Apr 15, 2019
IPVM interviewed Tony Porter, the UK’s surveillance camera commissioner after he recently called for regulations on facial recognition in the...
ISC West 2019 Report on Apr 12, 2019
The IPVM team has finished at the Sands looking at what companies are offering and how they are changing their positioning. See below for 50+...
UK Installer CCTV Aware - Flat Pricing, No Salespeople on Apr 10, 2019
This is a different kind of company. They do flat pricing, they do not have any salespeople and 50% of their sales are sold and booked...
The Hanwha Techwin Million Dollar ISC West Booth on Apr 05, 2019
One million dollars for 2 and 3/4 days. That is what Hanwha will pay for its ISC West 2019 exhibition. While the event is free for most...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Ex-Integrator Now Growth Strategist Interviewed on Apr 24, 2019
For more than a decade, Scot MacTaggart was a security integrator (at PA-based PSX). In late 2018, he left the industry. He is now a Growth...
19 Facial Recognition Providers Profiled on Apr 23, 2019
IPVM interviewed 19 facial recognition providers at ISC West to understand their claimed accuracy, success and positioning. 9 from China, where...
Locking Down Network Connections Guide on Apr 23, 2019
Accidents and inside attacks are risks when network connections are not locked down. Security and video surveillance systems should be protected...
Hikvision Admits USA Sales Falling on Apr 22, 2019
Hikvision, in a new Chinese financial filing, has admitted that its USA sales are now falling. Less than a year after the US government passed a...
Speco Ultra Intensifier Tested on Apr 22, 2019
While ISC West 2019 named Speco's Ultra Intensifier the best new "Video Surveillance Cameras IP", IPVM testing shows the camera suffers from...
Arecont Favorability Results 2019 on Apr 22, 2019
Arecont's net negativity remained the same in IPVM's 2019 integrator study, though integrator's feeling became relatively more neutral compared to...
H.265 Usage Statistics on Apr 19, 2019
H.265 has been available in IP cameras for more than 5 years and, in the past few years, the number of manufacturers supporting this codec has...
ACRE Acquires RS2, Explains Acquisition Strategy on Apr 19, 2019
ACRE continues to buy, now acquiring RS2, just 5 months after buying Open Options. One is a small access control manufacturer from Texas, the...
Access Control Course Spring 2019 - Last Chance on Apr 19, 2019
 Register for the Spring 2019 Access Control Course----Closed IPVM offers the most comprehensive access control course in the industry. Unlike...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact