Data Supplier, a firm based in Mumbai, has had three complaints against it upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
Two SMS messages (texts) were sent by the claims management company. The first text stated “We have been trying to contact you regarding your PPI Claim, we now have details of how much you are due, just reply CONFIRM and we will call you back”.
The second text stated “Our records indicate you may be entitled to £3750 for the accident you had. To claim for free just reply CLAIM to this msg. To stop text STOP”.
Three complainants, two of whom received the first text and one who received the second text, challenged whether the texts were misleading and could be substantiated, because they had not recently had an accident or did not believe that they were eligible to reclaim PPI payments.
They also claimed the texts breached the Code because they were unsolicited.
One of the complainants also challenged whether the first text breached the Code because it did not identify the advertiser.
Data Supplier did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
The ASA was concerned by Data Supplier’s lack of substantive response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). It reminded them of their responsibility to provide a substantive response to its enquiries and told them to do so in future.
The ASA noted that it had not seen any evidence to show that the recipients of the texts had given their explicit consent to be included on the Data Supplier’s database.
The ad regulator also understood that none of the recipients had recently had accidents or considered themselves to be eligible to make a PPI claim, and that the texts did not identify who the message had been sent from.
For those reasons it concluded that the texts were unsolicited and misleading, and were therefore in breach of the Code.
The texts breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 10.4, 10.4.2, 10.6 and 10.13.3 (Database practice).
The ASA ruled that the texts must not be sent again in their current form. It told Data Supplier not to send texts to consumers unless they had their explicit permission to do so. It also told them not to make claims in their advertising unless they could provide evidence to substantiate them, and to identify themselves as the advertiser in any future texts.
