UK Fines Security Firms For Illegal Direct Marketing

By: 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) : Members only. Login. or Join.

Related Reports

Arcules CEO Retracts False GDPR Claim + Dahua and Milestone Claims Examined on Dec 03, 2019
Arcules CEO has retracted a false claim about his organization being a "fully compliant GDPR company" after IPVM reporting (Arcules CEO Threatens...
France Declares School Facial Recognition Illegal Due to GDPR on Oct 31, 2019
France is the latest European country to effectively prohibit facial recognition as a school access control solution, even with the consent of...
UK Facewatch GDPR Compliance Questioned on Aug 27, 2019
Even as the GDPR strictly regulates biometrics, a UK company called Facewatch is selling anti-shoplifter facial recognition systems to hundreds of...
First GDPR Facial Recognition Fine For Sweden School on Aug 22, 2019
A school in Sweden has been fined $20,000 for using facial recognition to keep attendance in what is Sweden's first GDPR fine. Notably, the fine is...
New GDPR Guidelines for Video Surveillance Examined on Jul 18, 2019
The highest-level EU data protection authority has issued a new series of provisional video surveillance guidelines. While GDPR has been in...
First Video Surveillance GDPR Fine In France on Jul 08, 2019
The French government has imposed a sizeable fine on a small business for violating the GDPR after it constantly filmed employees without informing...
Nortek and SDS Fight Over Failed Settlement on Jun 05, 2019
Distributor SDS said they reached a deal with Nortek but Nortek says no settlement was reached and the suit is still on. In this post, based on...
Security / Privacy Journalist Sam Pfeifle Interview on May 24, 2019
Sam Pfeifle is best known as the outspoken former Editor of Security Systems News. After that, he was publications director at the International...
ADT's Top Dealer "The Defenders" Sued 20+ Times on May 07, 2019
ADT's largest authorized dealer, The Defenders, has been sued more than 20 times since 2012, IPVM has verified through analyzing legal...
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...

Most Recent Industry Reports

VergeSense Presents People Tracking Sensor on Jun 04, 2020
VergeSense presented its people tracking sensor and social distancing insights at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. A 30-minute video from...
FLIR A Series Temperature Screening Cameras Tested on Jun 04, 2020
FLIR is one of the biggest names in thermal and one of the most conservative. While rivals have marketed fever detection, FLIR has stuck to EST...
"Fever Camera" Show On-Demand Watch Now on Jun 03, 2020
IPVM has successfully completed the world's first "Fever Camera" show. Recordings from Both days are posted at the end of this report for on-demand...
Cobalt Robotics Presents Indoor Security and Access Robots on Jun 03, 2020
Cobalt Robotics presented indoor security robots at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video from Cobalt...
Dahua Sues Ex-North American President, Says Legal Typo on Jun 03, 2020
Dahua's former North American President Frank Zhang claims he is owed almost $11 million but Dahua counter claims it is just a "scrivener's error",...
Smart Entry Systems Presents Cloud Multi-Tenant Access Control on Jun 02, 2020
Smart Entry Systems presented Cloud Multi-Tenant Access Control at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video...
Genetec Drops Support for Dahua and Hikvision on Jun 01, 2020
Genetec has dropped support for Dahua and Hikvision, citing US blacklisting and ONVIF conformance blockage, the company informed partners in an...
Dotty "Hot Or Not" Elevated Body Temperature App Tested on Jun 01, 2020
What if you could take an existing phone or tablet and transform it into "fever camera"? That is what DottyAR is doing with their strangely named...
Optris "Fever Screening Systems" Examined on Jun 01, 2020
German manufacturer Optris has been building temperature measuring instruments for industrial manufacturing for over 15 years, and thermal cameras...
Fever Camera Sales From Integrators Surveyed on Jun 01, 2020
Fever cameras are the hottest trend in video surveillance currently but how much are integrators selling them? 220 integrators answered the...