What Not to Do When the ICO Comes Calling
No one likes spam texts, even when they are done accidentally, or by someone who didn’t “know” they were sending them. In the past year, the ICO has identified and taken action against a variety of companies. Some of them were clearly deliberate violations of the regulations, but quite a few were not.
The most recent example (at the time of this writing), fell into the latter category. The company apparently thought they met the regulatory requirements. But the ICO felt differently. What happened next is the lesson of this blog.
Specifics of the case
Early in January 2016, the ICO began receiving complaints about PRS Media sending unsolicited text marketing messages. The complaints continued through May of that year, totaling 2,629 in five months.
It turned out the company runs a competition and prize draw website that it used to gather mobile numbers for marketing purposes. To enter a competition, a person must agree to their terms, which included statements about receiving marketing messages.
On the surface, that arrangement might sound reasonable. People signed up in order to enter the competition, so they shouldn’t complain about getting the messages, right? But that isn’t what the rules say about SMS marketing.
Based on the complaints, the ICO requested information from the company on their practices and proof that the people they messaged had provided consent. After further investigation, they found that 4.4 million text messages were sent by the company based on their website “consent” to terms and conditions.
Here's where it went wrong
PRS Media ignored the first two requests for information by the ICO. They simply didn’t do anything to address the concerns or complaints received.
Later in August and September 2016, the ICO requested more information and never received a response.
As a result, this past March the company was fined £140,000 for sending 4.4 million spam texts.
It didn't have to be this way
Based on the description of how PRS operated it’s SMS marketing, they certainly were going to have some sort of penalty from the ICO. It’s no longer sufficient to have a check box where someone agrees to terms and conditions that they probably never read (does anyone?).
But the Commissioner has many options when it comes to the action it takes against companies. And it seems that many of the decisions (monetary ones especially) come down to how the company handled the problem.
For example, in the Monetary Penalty Notice issued to PRS Media Limited, it specifically states that the breach was not deliberate. In other words, the Commissioner didn’t believe the company was trying to scam or circumvent regulations on purpose. They weren’t following the regulations, but it wasn’t intentional (my interpretation of the notice), though they should have known better.
However, because of how the company responded, the penalty was greater than it might have otherwise been. Here are the “aggravating features” of the case identified in the notice:
“PRS Media Limited failed on two separate occasions to answer requests for information and it required the service of an Information Notice to compel a response.”
“The response received from PRS Media Limited to the Information Notice provided unsatisfactory answers to the questions asked and figures provided were at odds with the Commissioners own findings.”
The result of the company’s inaction in response to the ICO requests resulted in the seriously hefty fine.
If it happens to your company
Staying compliant with the regulations isn’t hard. Even though there are changes coming with the GDPR next year, the ICO publishes easy to follow guidance on how to make sure your company stays on track.
But if somehow you end up with spam complaints and a letter from the ICO asking for more information – do everything you can, as fast as you can, to comply with the request. There may be consequences for not doing something correctly, but things will be much worse if you try to hide, ignore or talk your way out of it.
Yet another company (Quigley and Carter Limited) have been fined by the ICO for not having permission to send SMS messages. In this case, they had outsourced their marketing to a third party who then sent messages on their behalf. So is staying compliant with the regulations regarding SMS messaging so difficult? It doesn’t have to be.
As with anything in business, there are rules and regulations that need to be followed. Some of the key ones are laid out in the UK Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulation (PECR) - and while this can seem like a daunting document at first, it doesn't need to be...
Over the last month or so I've signed up for quite a lot of webinars. I'm always trying to learn more about technology, marketing, best practices – you get the idea. So I've been excited to see many organisations offering SMS reminders for webinars. But there is one experience I had with an SMS reminder for a webinar that I simply had to share.
ICO, the Information Commissioner's Office, has recently imposed a huge fine on direct marketing company Help Direct UK for sending illegal SMS messages.
SMS Marketing, also known as test message marketing, is one of today's most powerful and cost efficient marketing tools when used correctly and offers endless opportunities with a little creativity added to the mix. However, whether careless or intentional, some mistakes can be harmful to your brand and reputation - as well as leaving you in legal trouble in certain circumstances. Luckily, this is extremely rare and it is easy to stay safe and make sure your SMS Marketing is an all round success. In this article, we look at come examples of how not to do things and offer our advice for ensuring your campaigns are effective and profitable.
You’d think a large, multinational company would have all the resources and planning it needed to run an SMS marketing campaign. But that isn’t always the case apparently. Find out the big mistake this one company made and how you can avoid doing the same thing in this blog.