Hong Kong Broadband Network denies direct marketing in phone call to client

A telecom service provider was accused of breaching the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance in Tsuen Wan Magistrates' Court on Monday, making it the first prosecution under a new ordinance for abuse of personal data.

Hong Kong Broadband Network (HKBN) was accused of breaching a clause of the new ordinance. This stipulates that a data subject may require a data user to cease using personal data in direct marketing.

A data user who contravenes the law is liable on conviction to a fine of HK$500,000 and imprisonment for three years.

In light of the new privacy ordinance enacted in April 2013, a client of HKBN wrote an e-mail to reject the company's use of his personal data for direct marketing. But a month later he received a phone call from a salesperson, who left a voice message. The client then complained to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data.

A senior account executive of the broadband service provider testified that the phone call was an after-sales service call - not a direct marketing call - to remind the client that his contract would expire soon.

Prosecutor Jerry Chung Ming-shing, in his closing statement, said the voice message that the salesperson left on the client's phone was not only a reminder, but also an attempt to sell a further promotion package, which was direct marketing.

If the salesperson had not listed any packages in the phone call and simply called the client to remind him that his contract was ending, then the phone call would have been perfectly fine, Chung said.

Defense lawyer Tony Li Chung-ying disagreed. He argued that the motive for the phone call was not for the purpose of new sales, but to obtain a renewal of the old contract.

Li said what the client had rejected was direct marketing, which was not the case in that instance - which was about the continuation of the old contract. Thus, the lawyer concluded that the company did not misuse the client's personal information as it did not use it for "a new purpose".

Magistrate Debbie Ng Chung-yee said the case was a prima facie one.

In listening to Li's closing statement, the magistrate questioned why the company needed to contact the client by phone to inform him and not by mail.

The company argued that it had e-mailed and sent a letter to the client but received no response.

Li said the company had taken many precautions to prevent any violations of the new law. It had trained new staff regarding the new ordinance and modified the new staff handbook. It also monitored two phone calls of an employee per week to see if any violations were found.

The verdict was adjourned until Sept 9.

stushadow@chinadailyhk.com

(HK Edition 09/01/2015 page8)