“Cold Calling” company fined £75K for breach of privacy

17 April 2015 by

iStock_000018110696XSmallReactiv Media Limited v The Information Commissioner (Privacy & Electronic Communications Regulations  (2003) [2015] UKFTT 2014_0213 (GRC) (13 April 2015) – read judgment

Although an individual’s right to privacy is usually thought of in the context of state intrusion in one form or another, in reality the real threat of intrusion in a society such as ours comes from unsolicited marketing calls.

What many people may not be aware of is that if an individual has registered with the Telephone Preference Service, these calls are unlawful and the company responsible may be fined. It is therefore worth making a complaint, even if one instinctively feels that taking such a step will invite more intrusion. This case is a nice illustration of privacy being upheld and the rules enforced against an unscrupulous and persistent offender.

TPS is operated on behalf of the direct marketing industry by the Direct Marketing Association (DPA) and subscribers’ rights not to receive such calls may be enforced under Regulation 21 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003

Legal and Factual Background

Between 13 November 2012 and 31 December 2013 TPS received 481 complaints from persons registered with them who had received direct marketing calls from Reactiv – each call was a breach of the regulations. The majority of these calls were made in spite of the fact that the DPA had found Reactiv to be in breach of the regulations in April 2013.

In July 2014 the Commissioner found that Reactiv had made 601 direct marketing unsolicited calls to subscribers who had been registered with TPS and who had not given consent to receive the calls. These included two examples of repeated calls on the same day to disabled persons, a call to the work mobile telephone of a 999 centre operator and one call to a complainant’s mother, who has dementia.

The Commissioner decided that a penalty of £50,000 should be imposed. On their appeal against this fine, Reactiv argued that a good proportion of the calls had not been theirs, and denied that they had caused “substantial damage or distress to individuals”.

They submitted, in particular, that

The company offered a service to the public, it had a right to trade, it was trading well in an area of high unemployment.

These and other arguments were rejected. The Commissioner drew the Tribunal’s attention to the aggravating factor of continuing calls made after Reactiv had been made aware of TMA’s findings against them, when it had

stonewalled the investigation and failed to engage with the Commissioner and had come to the Tribunal asserting that it had resolved the issues but not provided evidence.

The Commissioner also submitted that a penalty of £50,000 was too lenient for a company with an annual turnover of nearly six million pounds.

The Tribunal’s Decision

The Tribunal found the evidence “overwhelming” that the company carried on its business “in conscious disregard of its obligations”. In view of the financial robustness of the company and the aggravating factors in the case, “a culture of denial… weak governance of the company and a tendency to blame others rather than accept responsibility” the penalty originally imposed by the Commissioner was raised by 50% to £75,000.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS


  1. Mark Dawkin says:

    Reactive have mis-sold my infomation many times before, I have asked to opt out they say they have done this but continue to sell my information. This is about time this happened I think companies like this should be fined more, bloody scandelous

  2. […] post originally appeared on the UK Human Rights Blog and is reproduced with permission and […]

  3. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  4. sdbast says:

    Reblogged this on sdbast.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus Coroners costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: