Optus convicted of spamming, fined $110,000

Dan Warne14 January 2009, 6:26 PM

The country's second largest telco has been fined $110,000 by the Australian Communications and Media Authority for sending out spam.


Optus has paid the second highest penalty to date for breaches of the Spam Act, the Australian Media and Communications Authority announced today.

ACMA issued two separate infringement notices to the value of $110,000 to Optus for sending electronic messages without accurate sender identification, in contravention of the Spam Act.

Optus had sent out 20,000 SMS messages to its customers, without providing any information about where the messages came from or how to unsubscribe from them. The messages promoted the OptusZoo entertainment service and only identified themselves as coming from "966".

Optus' excuse was that customers should have known that "966" meant "Zoo". ACMA Chairman Chris Chapman knocked this bizarre excuse on the head, saying, "This was not considered sufficient identification, as "966" could be used to represent any number of permutations on a telephone keypad. Ensuring spam compliance procedures are understood by all staff is imperative for all businesses if they want to avoid the risk of costly fines."

ACMA tried to negotiate with Optus to get them to make an enforceable undertaking that they would cease these spamming activities, but Optus refused to agree to the regulator's request.

"Accordingly, ACMA decided to proceed with issuing the infringement notices," Chapman said. "Undertakings can provide an excellent opportunity for businesses to demonstrate their commitment to compliance. However, as in this example, ACMA will use its stronger enforcement powers where the undertakings offered are not considered an adequate response to the compliance issues raised."

Optus has now paid the fine and promised to ensure it will properly identify itself when sending out further spam.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

At the end of the day, they technically did the wrong thing so the fine is appropriate. Lesson learned, we all hope.

Personally, I'd have worked out the sender from the content and would have assumed 966 was some internal Optus number. I would never have guessed it was ZOO in phone number form.

14 January 2009, 10:36 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

AnthonyBrisbane (User):

I think it's quite clear to normal people that 966 would mean Zoo. So should Optus really be responsible because a few stupid people didn't know who the message came from?

14 January 2009, 10:50 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

chayes (User):

Who put the spam in the computer?

15 January 2009, 12:54 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

McBanjo (User):

Well obviously a $100,000 fine is cheaper than the cost of giving up the spamming, so win-win?

15 January 2009, 7:26 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags