2020-02-17
Legal Articles

Updating consent to receive marketing emails in preparation for the GDPR: be careful!

Home / Knowledge base / Updating consent to receive marketing emails in preparation for the GDPR: be careful!

Posted by Christine Jackson on 17 May 2017

Christine Jackson - Commercial Contracts Solicitor
Christine Jackson Partner

In order to become GDPR compliant, many organisations are facing the job of checking whether they hold GDPR-compliant consent to send marketing emails to individuals. To prepare for the introduction of the GDPR in May 2018 some organisations have sent emails to their database to check that marketing consents are up to date. However, recent fines from the ICO have highlighted some potential risks involved.

On 27 March this year the ICO fined both Honda and Flybe for sending emails to their customers to ask for confirmation of their contact details and marketing preferences.

Flybe sent an email to 3.3 million people asking ‘Are your details correct?’ The email asked recipients to update their details and marketing preferences for the chance to be entered into a prize draw.

The problem with the Flybe email was that it was sent to people who had previously refused or withdrawn their consent for email marketing.

This was in breach of current data protection law. The ICO made clear that emails sent for the purpose of updating marketing preferences are still sent for the purpose of direct marketing so require prior consent.

Flybe were fined £70,000 after an initial warning from the ICO which was ignored.

Honda sent an email to over 300,000 customers who did not have marketing preferences set (either because they were incomplete or had never been recorded). The purpose of the email was to ask these customers whether they did want to receive marketing communications.

The ICO similarly confirmed that any email sent to verify consent for direct marketing is in itself direct marketing. As such, the organisation sending the email must already have consent in place. Unknown marketing preferences cannot constitute consent.

Although the email was sent to Honda’s customers, Honda could not rely on the fact that the email address was acquired during a sale of goods, because the email addresses were collected by Honda’s dealers and not Honda directly.

Honda were fined £13,000 by the ICO.

The lessons to learn here are:

If an individual has previously refused or withdrawn consent to direct marketing:

If a person has previously refused their consent to receive marketing by email, no further marketing emails should be sent. This includes an email asking whether that person has changed their mind and would now like to receive marketing.

If it is unknown whether an individual consents to direct marketing:

If there is no evidence that a person has consented to receive direct marketing by email, no marketing emails should be sent. This includes an email asking whether that person does consent to such marketing.

If an individual has given their previous consent to direct marketing:

If there is already evidence that the person consents to direct marketing, it is fine to send an email to check whether that person still gives their consent (and to ensure that the consent is GDPR-compliant).

About the author

Christine helps clients manage risk and financial exposure in their day to day business dealings.

Christine Jackson

Christine helps clients manage risk and financial exposure in their day to day business dealings.

Recent articles

30 July 2020 Rethinking the landlord / tenant relationship

We have been following the travails of the high street for over 12 months where changing shopping habits, business rates and rent increases have been contributing to a growing strain on many landlord / tenant relationships. The Covid-19 pandemic has not only turned a bad situation critical for many retailers and hospitality venues but has also turned the spotlight on the wider commercial sector too. Almost all businesses operating across the country have suffered financially to a greater or lesser extent as result of the economic downturn precipitated by the imposition of lockdown in March.

Read article
30 July 2020 Bankrupts fail in claim to have interests in land revested in them

The claim by Mr and Mrs Brake (Brake v Swift), heard in the High Court in May, to have a cottage and adjacent land revested in them under Section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, was set against a background of convoluted litigation extending over a number of years, described by Matthews HHJ as ‘complex’. The claimants had been made bankrupt in 2015 and the matter before the Court concentrated on whether or not the property concerned was, indeed, the claimants’ principal residence at the time of the bankruptcy.

Read article
29 July 2020 Remote witnessing of wills – a sign of the times

The law governing how a will is witnessed dates back to 1837 and for good reason. The requirement for two people (neither of whom can inherit from the will they are witnessing) to be physically present at the signing of a will is designed to, among other things, prevent fraud and the exercise of undue influence. That is, until the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Read article
Contact
How can we help?
01926 732512
CALL BACK