ASA Adjudication on Pollock New Media Ltd

Ad

Unsolicited e-mails from mallplace.com, an online shopping and services website, were sent to unique e-mail addresses a customer had created when purchasing products from two online electrical retailers, millerbros.co.uk and qed-uk.com.

Issue

The recipient, who had previously complained to millerbros.co.uk and qed-uk.com that his e-mail address had been passed on and who had been assured that he would not receive e-mails from mallplace.com in future, challenged whether mallplace.com's database practices complied with the CAP Code.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Pollock New Media Ltd (PNML) said they had acquired mallplace.com from the administrators of Miller Brothers Retail Ltd on 15 January 2009.  They noted that several of the e-mails the recipient referred to preceded that.  They believed the administrators must have transferred to them a database that included the recipient's details in error.  They said they had relaunched mallplace.com in May 2009 and that the process to unsubscribe was included in all e-mails.  They said that, had the recipient used that facility on 1 May, he would not have received e-mails later that month.  They apologised for the concern caused to the recipient but confirmed that his details were now removed from their database.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted that PNML maintained that the administrators of Miller Brothers (the former owners) had failed to notify them of the recipient's request not to receive any more e-mails but that, if he had made one, they would have complied with a request the recipient made to them after they took over.  We noted, however, that the recipient would not necessarily have been aware of the new ownership and that he was likely to assume that his previous request was not being complied with.  We were concerned that the recipient continued to receive e-mails despite previous requests not to and despite a previous assurance that his details would be removed.  We welcomed PNML's assurance that the recipient would receive no more e-mails from them.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 43.3(c), 43.4(c), 43.5(a) and (b), 43.9 and 43.13 (Database practice).

Action

We welcomed PNML's assurance that the recipient would receive no more e-mails from them.  We told them to ensure their mailing list was accurate and up-to-date and that e-mails were not sent to recipients who had asked not to receive them.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)