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) : PRO Members only. Login. or Join.

Related Reports

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...
Anyvision Facial Recognition Tested on Aug 21, 2019
Anyvision is aiming for $1 billion in revenue by 2022, backed by $74 million in funding. But does their performance live up to the hype they have...
Suprema Biometric Mass Leak Examined on Aug 19, 2019
While Suprema is rarely discussed even within the physical security market, the South Korean biometrics manufacturer made global news this past...
Biometrics Usage Statistics 2019 on Aug 13, 2019
Biometrics are commonly used in phones, but how frequently are they used for access? 150+ integrators told us how often they use biometrics,...
Milestone "GDPR-ready" Certification Claim Critiqued on Aug 12, 2019
Milestone is touting that its latest XProtect VMS is "GDPR-ready" with a 'European Privacy Seal'. However, our investigation raises significant...
"Stats Don't Lie" Says Deceptive IFSEC on Jul 30, 2019
While IFSEC has declared #statsdontlie and trumpeted seemingly skyrocketing visitor numbers, they are decieving about their show's problems. On...
Australia Security Full Show Report on Jul 25, 2019
IPVM went to Australia attending the 3 days of the Australia Security Exhibition: This was held at the ICC Sydney, as shown below: In this...
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...
ZeroEyes Gun Detection Startup on Jul 16, 2019
A gun detection video analytics startup, ZeroEyes, is being led by a group of 6 former Navy SEALs, aiming to "save lives" by using AI to assist...
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...

Most Recent Industry Reports

TMA Apologizes to Amazon / Ring on Aug 23, 2019
Not only is Amazon / Ring making major incursions into the residential security market, the organization representing the biggest incumbents, The...
China Dahua Replaces Their Software With US Pepper on Aug 22, 2019
What does a US government banned company do to improve its security positioning in the US? Well, Dahua is unveiling a novel solution, partnering...
Security Integrators Outlook On Remaining Integrators In 2025 on Aug 22, 2019
The industry has changed substantially in the last decade, with the rise of IP cameras and the race to the bottom. Indeed, more changes may be...
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...
Anyvision Facial Recognition Tested on Aug 21, 2019
Anyvision is aiming for $1 billion in revenue by 2022, backed by $74 million in funding. But does their performance live up to the hype they have...
JCI Sues Wyze on Aug 21, 2019
The mega manufacturer / integrator JCI has sued the fast-growing $20 camera Seattle startup Wyze. Inside this note: Share the court...
Dahua 4K Camera Shootout on Aug 20, 2019
Dahua's new Pro Series 4K N85CL5Z claims to "deliver superior images in all lighting and environmental conditions", but how does this compare to...
ZK Teco Atlas Access Control Tested on Aug 20, 2019
Who needs access specialists? China-based ZKTeco claims its newest access panel 'makes it very easy for anyone to learn and install access control...
Uniview Beats Intel In Trademark Lawsuit on Aug 19, 2019
Uniview has won a long-running trademark lawsuit brought by Intel, with Beijing's highest court reversing an earlier Intel win, centered on...
Suprema Biometric Mass Leak Examined on Aug 19, 2019
While Suprema is rarely discussed even within the physical security market, the South Korean biometrics manufacturer made global news this past...

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