Virgin Media Fined $50K For Spamming Opted-Out Customers (theregister.com) 13
British telco Virgin Media is facing a 50,000 pound financial penalty after spamming more than 400,000 opted-out customers urging them to sign back up to receive marketing bumf. The Register reports: Just one customer complained to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) about receiving the spam -- but that was enough to spur the regulator into investigating. In a message disguised as a routine communication about tariff prices, Virgin told the unfortunate 451,217 recipients it knew full well they'd opted out of marketing emails but wanted them to opt back in. A dischuffed customer wrote to the ICO urging action, describing the spam as "basically a service message dressed up as an attempt to get me to opt back in to marketing communications." When the ICO asked Virgin why it did this thing, the telco said the 451,000 recipients had opted out of being spammed more than a year ago, and therefore "might have changed their marketing preferences."
Even though 6,500 customers decided to opt back into receiving marketing emails as a result of the mailshot, the ICO said this wasn't enough to ignore regulation 22 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. This is the bit of the law that says email marketers must have your consent before filling your mailbox with enticing new ways to part you from your hard-earned cash. "The fact that Virgin Media had the potential for financial gain from its breach of the regulation (by signing up more clients to direct marketing) is an aggravating factor, not a defense," sniffed the unamused watchdog.
Even though 6,500 customers decided to opt back into receiving marketing emails as a result of the mailshot, the ICO said this wasn't enough to ignore regulation 22 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. This is the bit of the law that says email marketers must have your consent before filling your mailbox with enticing new ways to part you from your hard-earned cash. "The fact that Virgin Media had the potential for financial gain from its breach of the regulation (by signing up more clients to direct marketing) is an aggravating factor, not a defense," sniffed the unamused watchdog.
Now I know why... (Score:3)
...companies keep spamming me: it's fuc*ing CHEAP for them (less than 0.125 GBP).
Spammers should be fined for SPAMMING me, at least 3 GBP EACH TIME so... in this case, the stupid company should have paid more than 1,200,000 GPB.
But no, let's protect those criminals and let them fu*k me for cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
...companies keep spamming me: it's fuc*ing CHEAP ...
Yep.
50,000 pound financial penalty after spamming more than 400,000 opted-out customers> That's 12.5 pence, about 17 cents each.
How much did the spam earn them? (Score:3)
If they made more than 50k from the spam, seems like a good deal!
it should be $50K per opted out recipient! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first thought as well.
They have great downstream speeds but that's it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want to second this.
Their service WAS working well for years but now it's become, for want of a better word for me, an embarrassment. Some evenings their WiFi was down and up, several times an hour like a whore's drawers. Sometimes the router, their "Super"hub 2 would crash completely even though it's always had its power supply protected by a UPS! Complaints about this resulted in bullshit suggestions that perhaps having other houses in the vicinity was resulting in their WiFi interfering with my WiFi. F
Re: (Score:2)
I must say they were very reliable for me over many years, very rare downtime, and speeds that matched what was advertised. I guess it depends on the infrastructure they have in a given area. I was sad when I moved home a few months ago to somewhere where Virgin was not available. Their router was indeed crap though, but I just put it in modem mode behind a TP-Link router, that was a 100% reliable setup.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason that this story would change anyone's opinion on whether "the U.S. Government is a butt plug for big corporations" would be that they failed to spot that it's about the UK government.
$ = dollars, £ = pounds (Score:3)
Hello,
Headline says fine was $50,000 (USD). It was £50,000 (GBP).
At the current exchange rate, £50,000 equals about $66,000.
Regards,
Aryeh Goretsky