The Information Commissioner's Office ('ICO') in the UK issued a penalty notice and a fine of £10,000 for sending 491,995 direct marketing emails for face masks between 23 August 2019 and 7 April 2020 to subscribers without valid consent.
UK ICO fined E-Commerce company £10,000 for unsolicited marketing emails
SI Ltd, trading as ‘Fun Stickers’, is a company operating an e-commerce site under the name of Stickerexpress.
The Commissioner, via the ICO SPAM reporting facility, identified a complaint regarding unsolicited direct marketing having been sent on 4 May 2020.
The source of its data used for its campaign was stated to be 'Sales by website stickerexpress.co.uk, Amazon and eBay'.
No evidence of specific consent was provided for SI Ltd’s unsolicited direct marketing.
Of those 491,995 received messages, 276,866 were sent between 20 March 2020 and 7 April 2020 and specifically concerned the advertising of protective face masks.
In this instance, SI Ltd has made no effort to demonstrate that it held valid consent to engage in unsolicited direct marketing.
Consent is required to be “freely given”, and to not be mandated as a term or condition of service.
Consent must also be “specific” as to the type of marketing communication to be received, and the organisation, or specific type of organisation, that will be sending it.
You can find the details at the monetary penalty notice
UniConsent is a part of Transfon User Experience Platform serves tens of millions of users per day to provide a seamless privacy experience for both users and publishers in the age of post GDPR. Contact us to know more: email@example.com
IAB Tech Lab released Global Privacy Platform (GPP) specifications
What is new about IAB TCF: GVL changes and Action Plan of IAB TCF to the Belgian DPA Decision
Reject All button at cookie banner for GDPR in each country
IAB TCF Update, Reduction of the timestamps precision in the TC String
Italy Garante: Guidelines on Cookies & Tracking Technologies takes effect on 9th Jan 2022
Austrian DPA: Google Analytics violates "Schrems II" decision by CJEU