MMS Spam-what are the legalities?

F

Flint

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
266
Reaction score
0
Location
Gauteng, South Africa
Hi all. I bank with Nedbank and got fed up with their weekly telesales spam ages ago and got removed from that list with a bit of a toy-throwing session. Today they pissed me off with something new.
Earlier today I received a ~100k MMS (slideshow/video with voiceover) advertising the overdraft facility on my account (as if I don't already know about it). The MMS also included a text message informing me that 'Nedbank subscribes to strict anti-spamming policies' and that to be removed from the list I should send an SMS to a specific number-AT A COST of 50c! I sent the SMS, and got one in return informing me of a system error and that I should try again later!
So after ~20c worth of bandwidth and a wasted 50c SMS I called their sharecall line (no tollfree, why am I not surprised) and got bounced around to about three different people, and had to call a further 2 numbers-and am still not sorted.

My question is: is this even legal? I know 50c is not exactly big bucks, but in principal I find being charged to be removed from a spam list I never subscribed to absolutely despicable!
 
I think the opt-out system is legal, but if they don't unsubscribe you when you request it they're in violation of the ECA.
 
IDEA:

For every MMS spam you get, charge the "offender" for pixel rental. for every pixel used, send an invoice for .50c per mono pixel and R1 for a colour one. Done that once to a company sending me SMS' , charged R10 per letter - sent an invoice and the offending company phoned and complained to me :-) it was so much fun :) but never got another spam from them again.
 
For the sake of the discussion, I'll post the current legalities around unsolicited mail.

The Act states the following, and only the following:

1) You must provide, and honour, an opt-out option. Failure to do so is an offence.
2) You must provide, on request, the source (i.e. where you got it) of the e-mail, number, etc. you sent the message to. Failure to do so is an offence.

That is the sum total of the ACT's views on unsolicited bulk mail. Below I've included the full entry.

Specifically the act does not require an opt-in, not does it say that opt-out should be free of charge, for example.

Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002
Chapter VII - Consumer Protection

45. Unsolicited goods, services or communications

1) Any person who sends unsolicited commercial communications to consumers, must provide the consumer

a) with the option to cancel his or her subscription to the mailing list of that person; and

b) with the identifying particulars of the source from which that person obtained the consumer's personal information, on request of the consumer.

2) No agreement is concluded where a consumer has failed to respond to an unsolicited communication.

3) Any person who fails to comply with or contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to the penalties prescribed in section 89(1).

4) Any person who sends unsolicited commercial communications to a person who has advised the sender that such communications are unwelcome, is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to the penalties prescribed in section 89(1).
Click to expand...
 
vodacom3g said:
For the sake of the discussion, I'll post the current legalities around unsolicited mail.

The Act states the following, and only the following:

1) You must provide, and honour, an opt-out option. Failure to do so is an offence.
2) You must provide, on request, the source (i.e. where you got it) of the e-mail, number, etc. you sent the message to. Failure to do so is an offence.

That is the sum total of the ACT's views on unsolicited bulk mail. Below I've included the full entry.

Specifically the act does not require an opt-in, not does it say that opt-out should be free of charge, for example.
Click to expand...

Wasnt Opt-in ammended to the Act as the spammers were using premium rate numbers for opt-out SMS's
 
vodacom3g said:
For the sake of the discussion, I'll post the current legalities around unsolicited mail.

The Act states the following, and only the following:

1) You must provide, and honour, an opt-out option. Failure to do so is an offence.
2) You must provide, on request, the source (i.e. where you got it) of the e-mail, number, etc. you sent the message to. Failure to do so is an offence.

That is the sum total of the ACT's views on unsolicited bulk mail. Below I've included the full entry.

Specifically the act does not require an opt-in, not does it say that opt-out should be free of charge, for example.
Click to expand...
but the ECT Act is not the full story as the wireless application service provider that sent the message will be subject to the network rules and perhaps to the rules of the wireless application service providers association (www.waspa.org.za) in which case opt-in is required (bearing in mind that consent can exist in many forms including a recent commercial relationship)

under the WASPA code of conduct the max cost to unsubscribe is R1 - and i agree with you that it should be zero

from what you have set out the only potential problem i can see is with the unavailability of the unsubscribe functionality
 
@dominic - I complained to the WASPA about MTN spam and received the following
After investigating this matter, we have established that the number you provided in your complaint is not assigned to any of WASPA's member organisations, but is operated directly by MTN. Unfortunately, this means that your complaint falls outside of WASPA's jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Who can one direct a complaint to in a case like that?
 
I think that is the essence of the problem. The only law is the ACT itself, don't think any other regulations are legally binding, more of a guideline.. And many spammers won't care about belonging to an organisation and abiding by it's regulations.
 
Last edited:
bwana said:
@dominic - I complained to the WASPA about MTN spam and received the followingWho can one direct a complaint to in a case like that?
Click to expand...
not sure but that may be the smscode website?

shrugs

@v3g - if the wasp is a member of waspa or uses the networks then the network regulations or waspa's code of conduct are binding and both have teeth

the networks have a particularly brutal way of dealing with repeat offenders
 
RichardP said:
:D :D :D LOL!!!!! in other words .. the WASPA is a complete waste of time..?
Click to expand...
not at all sure how you made that great intellectual leap, but you are wrong

waspa has made a significant difference in cleaning up the industry and deals with a far greater number of issues than spam
 
bwana said:
It was unsolicited advertising from MTN itself.
Click to expand...
they would probably argue that it is not unsolicited due to a recent commercial relationship

i guess if it is the networks then that pretty much leaves you with the SAPS :(
 
dominic said:
they would probably argue that it is not unsolicited due to a recent commercial relationship

i guess if it is the networks then that pretty much leaves you with the SAPS :(
Click to expand...
It was also kinda pointless as I'm on vodacom. :rolleyes:

My turn . .

shrugs
 
bwana said:
@dominic - I complained to the WASPA about MTN spam and received the followingWho can one direct a complaint to in a case like that?
Click to expand...
Send a copy of all correspondance to the ASASA (via their website). Since the MMS spam is an advertisement they will make a judgement.
I doubt whether the non joined-up reasoning from Vodacom will pass their noses. There are two main issues.
  1. The company sends you the mail without your consent. They then argue you can opt out now, but only after the fact. This is not logical.
  2. The companies charge a premium to stop sending you the mail. This is nothing more than blackmail.
Is it really our jobs to spend good money chasing up WASPAs who send us this nonsense. Even if you do manage to trace these people they tend to be rude and reasonable. Otherwise they tell you Vodacom asked them to do it. No doubt to try and shirk responsibility.
Don't mess around. STOP THEM !
 
bwana said:
It was unsolicited advertising from MTN itself.
Click to expand...

Skeptik said:
Is it really our jobs to spend good money chasing up WASPAs who send us this nonsense. Even if you do manage to trace these people they tend to be rude and reasonable. Otherwise they tell you Vodacom asked them to do it. No doubt to try and shirk responsibility.
Don't mess around. STOP THEM !
Click to expand...

Now Vodacom gets the blame for MTN's marketing campaigns?? :confused:

Before we go further, I'll admit we're also responsible for global warming! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X