Spam call crackdown in South Africa

South Africa’s Information Regulator wants to crack down on spam calls in the country, and it has several enforcement notices in the pipeline.
The watchdog recently issued an enforcement notice against FT Rams Consulting for contravening various sections of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) and Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA).
It said it had identified 14 other offenders, whom it planned to slap with enforcement notices.
The Information Regulator said some of these matters are still in process and will only be publicly announced once it is concluded.
“The other enforcement notices (both on compliance with POPIA and PAIA) issued thus far in this year are TransUnion (POPIA), the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (PAIA), and FT Rams (POPIA),” it added.
“We are currently conducting continuous assessments and investigations and outcomes thereof will determine compliance by the public or private bodies.”
It noted that only TransUnion had responded to the enforcement notice, asking for an extension. The Information Regulator is yet to determine if it is now compliant.
In February 2024, the Information Regulator completed a direct marketing guidance note which effectively says telemarketing amounts to electronic communication.
Therefore, it must be regulated under POPIA, with offenders guilty of contravening the act facing fines of up to R10 million or jail time.
Information Regulator chair Pansy Tlaukula said she expects direct marketing companies to want to fight the changes in court.
“The rules are very clear but I think with direct marketing. My sense is that we’ll probably end up being in court,” she said.
“They will wait for the time when there is a complaint, and once we decide against them, they’ll probably take us on review and the issue of whether a telephone is electronic communication or not will come to the fore.”
The chair explained that the problem at hand isn’t that these companies call customers for marketing.
The primary concerns are over them spam calling people even when the recipient declines the communication.
“If you decline the communication, they should stop, but they don’t stop,” she said, adding that she, too, was getting frustrated with the situation.

Pansy Tlakula, Information Regulator chair
MyBroadband previously spoke to the Information Regulator about the move and the process surrounding complaints.
“Following receipt of a complaint on direct marketing, we would conduct an investigation, which may be followed by an enforcement notice,” it said.
However, it added that it may also carry out a section 89 assessment on its own initiative or by request, followed by an assessment report.
“The Assessment Report is equivalent to an enforcement notice,” the watchdog added.
“Should the responsible party fail to adhere to the instructions in an enforcement notice, this may result in us issuing an infringement notice which carries a fine of up to R10 million and/or imprisonment.”
The Information Regulator issued FT Rams Consulting an enforcement notice in February 2024 for contravening POPIA.
It said it had received a complaint about FT Rams Consulting’s direct marketing from an individual who had received countless direct marketing messages from the company.
“Regardless of the multiple attempts to opt out and requests to be removed from the company emailing list, FT Rams Consulting blatantly ignored the pleas from the data subject and continued to send them marketing messages on email,” it added.
The Information Regulator instructed FT Rams Consulting to stop sending unsolicited direct marketing messages via any form of electronic communication to which data subjects haven’t consented.
It must ensure that the first communication they send to individuals requests consent. It can only approach each individual once to ask for permission.
The Information Regulator gave FT Rams Consulting 90 days to comply with the instructions and provide proof of its compliance or face a fine of R10 million or jail time of up to 10 years.
It is unclear what the outcome was as the 90-day period has since passed.