Wild telemarketing: fine for Tiscali and Comparafacile

The Privacy Guarantor imposed a fine of 100,000 euros on Tiscali and 40,000 euros on Comparafacile for abusive telemarketing practices. The irregularities found mainly concern the lack of complete information on the storage of customer data. In particular, Tiscali provided incomplete information without specifying the duration of data retention for marketing and profiling purposes. Although the company claimed to have operated in compliance with the regulations, it was highlighted that even inadequate information can be sanctioned, regardless of the damage caused to the interested party. The investigations also revealed that Tiscali sent promotional SMS to over 160,000 customers without having obtained their consent.

Extensive interpretation of the regulations by Tiscali

The company was also sanctioned for having illegitimately interpreted the regulations on sending advertising communications without the consent of the recipients. Tiscali sent promotional SMS to customers without having obtained their consent, violating the conditions for sending advertising communications via e-mail. The Guarantor underlined that such communications must concern products and/or services provided directly by Tiscali and not by third parties, and must be similar to those already purchased by the interested parties.

Deletion of personal data acquired illicitly

Comparafacile was fined due to reports of citizens registered in the public register of oppositions who continued to receive promotional calls despite having requested the deletion of their data. The Privacy Guarantor ascertained that Comparafacile, after purchasing contact lists from a foreign company, contacted people to ask if they were interested in receiving commercial offers. However, the first telephone contact was made without verifying the consent of the interested parties and without providing them with adequate information. Uninformed consent obtained through a mechanism that forces the user to declare interest in the company's services is not legitimate. Therefore, Comparafacile cannot consider this consent as a valid basis for its marketing activities. Although the company attempted to justify its actions by claiming to act as data controller, the Guarantor underlined that the activities carried out by Comparafacile, from the selection of the list supplier to the definition of the purposes and the choice of the contact channel, effectively make it data controller. Consequently, the company is responsible for both the obligations required by law and the alleged violations committed.