Complaint Case Notes

編號: 0143/2015/IP

標題: Sending promotional messages

立案原因: Complaint


      The current case stemmed from Company A, a real estate company, which illegally obtained his personal data, according to the Complainant of the case. The Complainant complained to the GPDP (Gabinete para a Protecção de Dados Pessoais) that despite he had exercised his right to object, Company A kept calling and texting him, as well as sending him Whatsapp messages.


    The GPDP tried to obtain further information from Company A, which explained that the Complainant, through a real estate company, Company B, once concluded a lease contract with a customer of Company A. Because of this, Company A retained the Complainant’s personal data in its system. Later, Company A, by checking the real estate status report (informação escrita), learnt that the Complainant was the owner of a flat building, the Company staff, therefore, according to the personal data found in the company system, contacted the Complainant and asked whether he was interested in selling his flat.
    Under Article 4(1)(1) and 3(1) of the PDPA (Personal Data Protection Act), Company A’s processing of the personal data of the Complainant was subject to the same Law.
    Company A obtained the personal data of the tenant (arrendatário), i.e., the Complainant of the current case, resulting from the leasing the property on behalf of its customer. Along the same line, the leasing would not involve marketing and the lease (arrendamento) contract was also drawn without any terms and conditions relating to marketing. After the conclusion of the said contract, Company A contacted the Complainant to solicit business, which was impertinent to the lease. If the Complainant’s personal data was used for marketing, his prior consent should be obtained. Company A, however, failed to offer proof to show that the Complainant’s consent had been obtained in advance of its marketing activities. As such, it was suspected of breaching Article 6 of the PDPA.
    On the other hand, the Complainant, under Article 12(2) of the PDPA, has the right to exercise his right to object, without paying any fee, against Company A’s continuous processing of his personal data for direct marketing purpose. The Complainant expressed that he had tried to exercise his right to object by calling Company A, but failed to supply proof of his call records. Thus, he failed to justify that he had exercise such right effectively. After the GPDP intervened in the current case, the Complainant had ceased receiving the unsolicited marketing calls from Company A, and therefore this Company was not found violating Article 12 of the PDPA.


      Taking into account that it was the first time Company A was found in breach of Article 6 of the PDPA and was cooperative during the investigations, in addition that further complaints had not been received from others against Company A’s marketing calls, the GPDP henceforth decided to impose, based on Article 33(2) of the PDPA, a penalty of MOP$10,000 to this Company.

Please refer to Article 3, 4, 6, 12 and 33 of the PDPA.