個人資料保護辦公室

Gabinete para a Protecção de Dados Pessoais

Office for Personal Data Protection

Complaint Case Notes
Print

No: 0053/2013/IP

Title: Promotional calls

Reason: Complaint

Brief:

    Citizen A indicated that he received promotional phone calls, with hidden caller’s ID, made by someone who claimed himself as the employee of Company A.  On the same day, Citizen A called Company A, requesting not to call him again for any sales promotion.  After that, Citizen A received promotional phone calls by someone, calling from number X, who said he was Company B’ employees.  As learned by Citizen A from Company B, Company A and Company B are actually the same shop.  Citizen A indicated that he had exercised the right to object against Company A and asked why Company B called again.  Company B replied that there should have related records but as the phone call was made randomly so Company B called Citizen A again.
  Citizen A believed what Company A did was suspected of violating the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA, or Law 8/2005) and thus lodged a complaint to the GPDP.

Analysis:

    According to Article 4(1)(1) and Article 3(1) of the PDPA, the data processing of this case should be governed by the same Law.
  Company A indicated that it had no relations with Company B.  However, according to GPDP’s investigation, Company B has been contained in the advertisement of Centre C and Company A.  Shops of Centre C have been moved to the shops of Company A; in other words, Company A currently is the only entity responsible for promoting Company B. 
  In the two promotional calls Citizen A has received, one was with hidden caller’s ID and another one with number X.  After the GPDP consulted Bureau D, Z was confirmed as the person who registered number X.  The GPDP attempted to contact Z, in both writings and through other possible ways, and required him to personally visit the GPDP to provide information, but failed to contact Z.  Based on the available information, the GPDP failed to obtain information regarding Z and also failed to confirm if he was familiar with the internal operations and the promotions of Company A.  Therefore, at present there is no evidence showing that number X is used by Company A; Company A commissioned Z for its telephone sales promotion, for which Company A has called Citizen A and processed the latter’s personal data. 
  In addition, Company A reported to the GPDP that it did not call Citizen A, during the period he said, for any promotions or treatment, therefore no information supports that this Company A violated Article 12 of the PDPA–the right to object. 
  To sum up, at present, there is no evidence showing that Company A made promotional calls to Citizen A and processed his personal data.

Result:

    The GPDP has informed Citizen A and Company A the result of the investigations and also closed the current case.

Reference:
Please refer to "Personal Data Protection Act", articles 3, 4 and 12.

Back

Avenida da Praia Grande, N.º 804, Edif. China Plaza, 17.º andar, Macau Tel:(853) 2871 6006 Fax:(853) 2871 6116