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: 0010/2013/IP

Title: Promotional cold calls continue after raising objections

Reason: Complaint

Brief:

    X indicated that he had received promotional cold calls for many times, in which the caller said he worked for Company A.  Whenever X received the call, he required the calling party to stop calling him, but the cold calls continued.  Caller ID was displayed in one of the calls he received.
  X believed that Company A failed to respect his right to object, and suspected that this violated the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA, or Law 8/2005), and thus filed a complaint to the Office for Personal Data Protection (GPDP).

Analysis:

 
  According to Article 4(1)(1) and Article 3(1) of the PDPA, the processing of the data of this case should be governed by the same Law.
  The GPDP has investigated into Company A, who indicated that neither its staff in Hong Kong nor those in Macau had ever called the telephone number of X, therefore it had no records of calling his mobile phone number.
  As X failed to provide the caller’s ID of most of the calls he had received, the GPDP could not verify the identity of the actual caller.
  According to the inquiry with Bureau B, the registered user identified as using the aforesaid number was Y.  The GPDP later sent a letter to Y, requiring him to provide the necessary data to the GPDP personally, but no response had been received.  In addition, the GPDP also wrote to Bureau C for further assistance.  In addition, the GPDP attempted to contact B by telephone for a number of times, but no one answered.
  At present the GPDP could not obtain any information about the background or the occupation of Y, nor confirming if Y was informed of Company X’s internal operations or methods of promotions.  In addition, Company A denied that it had ever called X for product or service promotions, thus lacking objective evidence. 
  If Company A had ever processed the personal data of X, it should comply with the provisions of the PDPA, including the right to object as specified in its Article 12.
  X indicated that the promotional cold calls continued after raising his objections.  In this regard, as mentioned above, there was no evidence showing that Company A had ever called X and even continued the promotional calls after A had expressly objected to.
  In conclusion, no evidence showed that Company A violated the PDPA, but there was room for improvement for its handling of data.

Result:

    The GPDP informed Company A and X the investigation results and recommended Company A preparing a list of customers who refused to receive promotional materials.  This case has been closed.

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