Contents

1. Summary
   1. Facts
   2. Holding
2. Comment
3. Further resources
4. The Decision

Summary

Phiilip Bolo alleged receiving unsolicited promotional messages from Platinum Credit Ltd despite requesting they stop and delete his data. The respondent claimed the applicant was not a customer and they don't send unsolicited messages. The ODPC found the respondent sent promotional messages without consent and violated the applicant's rights. The final ruling found the respondent liable and ordered compensation of KES 900,000.

Facts

The Complainant alleged that he had been constantly receiving unsolicited text messages and phone calls from the Respondent's agents, promoting its loan products, without obtaining his consent.

He also stated that he made calls requesting the Respondent to stop contacting him, but they elicited no change in attitude, and the Respondent kept calling and sending text messages about his personal data.

Additionally, the Complainant stated that he had made calls requesting the Respondent to delete his number from their database. Despite this, he continued to receive unsolicited messages.

The Complainant prayed for Kshs. 1,000,000/= as compensation for the stress caused.

The Respondent stated that upon thorough investigation, it confirmed that the Complainant has never been a customer and does not have his information or data stored in its database. They averred that they conduct comprehensive internal investigations to identify the source of communications, and in this instance, the investigated numbers are neither affiliated with their company nor are their employees.

The Respondent also asserted that it does not send unsolicited text messages nor contact people to market its products without their express consent and that all communications are in full compliance with Data Protection laws.

They further stated that all contact made by its representatives was strictly made by the Customer Care team in response to the Complainant’s complaints. The Respondent maintained that the numbers it used do not belong to its agents or employees.

The ODPC established that:

• the Complainant indeed received promotional messages from the Respondent’s agents.
• the Respondent failed to demonstrate that it obtained express consent from the Complainant before sending promotional messages.
• the Respondent also failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act.