Search Privacy Fines

National Debt Advice sent 129,902 unsolicited direct marketing text messages to individuals in breach of regulation 22 of PECR resulting in over 4,000 complaints to the 7726 spam reporting service. The company was fined £30,000 and issued with an enforcement notice.

Fortis Insolvency Limited sent 558,354 direct marketing SMS messages without valid consent with 527,481 received by subscribers between 26 July 2020 and 26 July 2021 in contravention of regulation 22 of PECR. The company was fined £30,000 and issued with an enforcement notice.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has fined Halfords Limited £30,000 for sending 498,179 unsolicited marketing emails to people without their consent.

This inquiry is one of a number of own-volition inquiries into a broad range of issues pertaining to surveillance technologies deployed by State authorities. The inquiry sought to assess…

Articles: Art. S 79

A company that instructed a firm in Belize to send around 64,000 spam texts promoting loans on its behalf has been fined £20,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

A data brokerage company traded personal data without the consent of the data subjects.

Live calls being made with a view to generating leads for potential claims for damages in respect of hearing loss caused by working in a noisy environment

Costelloe & Kelly Ltd undertook a direct text marketing campaign without a valid consent to individuals in contravention of Regulation 22 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.

1718 unsolicited calls were made by the Company for direct marketing purposes to people who were registered with the TPS. This resulted in 4 complaints being made to the TPS and the Commissioner.

Défaut de consentement préalable, défaut de consentement des personnes, non respect du droit d'opposition; Immobilier - prospection commerciale

The Data Protection Commission (DPC) has completed an inquiry into certain aspects of the Department of Health’s processing of personal data in 29 litigation files. The inquiry was…

Articles: Art. S 41, Art. S 47

Obligation de traiter les données de façon licite (vidéoprotection); Information des personnes; Défaut de sécurité des données

Obligation de traiter les données de façon licite; Minimisation des données (vidéoprotection et vidéosurveillance); Durée de conservation; Information des personnes; Encadrement des relations entre le responsable de traitement et le sous-traitant; Défaut de sécurité des données; Obligation de réaliser une analyse d'impact

Limitation des finalités; Minimisation des données; Information des personnes; Non respect du droit d'opposition; Défaut de sécurité des données

Obligation de traiter les données de façon licite (vidéoprotection); Minimisation des données (vidéosurveillance); Information des personnes; Encadrement des relations entre le responsable de traitement et le sous-traitant; Registre des activités de traitement; Défaut de sécurité des données; Obligation de réaliser une analyse d'impact

Consentement des personnes (prospection commerciale par voie électronique - L. 34-5 CPCE); Durée de conservation; Défaut de sécurité des données

Obligation de traiter les données de façon licite (vidéoprotection); Minimisation des données (vidéosurveillance); Information des personnes