Earlier this month the Richmond District Court in Dublin handed down the first
sentence under Ireland's anti-spamming law, in a prosecution brought by the
Data Protection Commissioner.
Company 4’s a Fortune was found to have sent unsolicited messages to
members of the public in March 2004. Since November 2003 under SI 535 of 2003
[European Communities (Electronic Communications Networks and Services) (Data
Protection and Privacy) Regulations 2003] the sending of unsolicited commercial
mail from Ireland has in some instances been an offence.
The company – which operates what it calls an 'online casino-like cash
game' made a total of 165,000 calls, all to O2 customers. The calls were mostly
by auto-diallers that hung up after two rings. When recipients noticed a missed
call on their phones, some of them called back to the landline number displayed.
They were then put through to a recorded message which encouraged them to call
a premium rate number and play a game to win money. The Data Protection Commissioner
(DPC) argued that these callbacks constituted a message and as such came under
the legislation governing spam.
4’s a Fortune entered a guilty plea in July. The DPC said the company
had been co-operative and there had been no recent complaints against it. The
company was fined €300 for each of four complaints from mobile phone users
who had received the missed call, plus costs of €1,000.
The DPC says is currently investigating close to 100 cases in total, some of
them involving e-mail spam. However, most unsolicited email originates abroad,
making it extremely difficult to gather evidence to prosecute a case.
Irish rules, which came into force in November 2003, set out restrictions
on unsolicited direct marketing by phone, fax, automated calling systems, email,
SMS and MMS. Cold calling – the making of unsolicited calls without the
prior consent of the recipient or the recipient being an existing customer –
is forbidden.
The judge in the case said she was surprised that no custodial sentence was
available in the Regulations – although she added that it would not have
been appropriate in the circumstances of this case.