A company marketing call blocking devices was sanctioned for itself conducting massive illegal telemarketing campaigns, specifically targeting elderly and vulnerable individuals registered on a do-not-call list.

Facts and context

The British supervisory authority (ICO) issued a sanction decision against Elderly Aids Ltd (EAL), including a fine of £190,000 (approximately €224,200), for breaches related to illegal telemarketing calls.

The case began following 20 complaints filed with the ICO and the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) regarding unsolicited direct marketing calls.

Grounds for the decision

• Violation of telemarketing rules (Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 - PECR): The authority found that the company made 758,053 unsolicited direct marketing calls between May 2024 and February 2025 to individuals registered on the Telephone Preference Service (TPS), a do-not-call list. The regulation prohibits such calls unless the person has specifically consented to be contacted by the organization in question. The ICO emphasized that the company deliberately targeted elderly people to sell call blocking devices, using aggressive and misleading methods and often failing to identify itself. The company's lack of cooperation during the investigation and its attempt to be removed from the Companies Register were considered aggravating factors.

Authority's decision

Consequently, the authority imposed a fine of £190,000 (approximately €224,200) on Elderly Aids Ltd.

Furthermore, the authority ordered the company, by injunction, to cease its illegal marketing calls and to comply with caller identification requirements.

Lessons learned

This decision reminds that:

• Deliberately targeting individuals considered vulnerable, such as the elderly, is an aggravating factor in determining a sanction.
• Registration of a person on a do-not-call list must be strictly respected and can only be bypassed by specific consent from the person to be contacted by the organization concerned.
• Marketing a product or service allegedly aimed at protecting privacy (such as a call blocker) does not exempt the organization from complying with applicable rules in its own telemarketing practices.
• Obstruction of an investigation, including ignoring requests from the supervisory authority or attempting to dissolve the company to evade responsibility, is a circumstance that increases the sanction.