3 ms·

> Spam email is pretty par for the course nowadays. And it's against the law. They sent 80 million spams in a year; that's more than the number of humans (inc

> Spam email is pretty par for the course nowadays. And it's against the law. They sent 80 million spams in a year; that's more than the number of humans (including infants) in their target market. Laws should either be enforced or repealed; laws that aren't enforced are a menace. It's true that the ICO's primary mission is behaviour-change, not punishment; but before issuing a fine, the ICO will write several times, explaining the problem and suggesting remedies. To get fined at all, HelloFresh must have ignored these letters. The UK government never wanted to introduce anti-spam legislation; it was forced on them by the EU, and our implementation was kitted out with loopholes.

jdietrich 3y ago
>They sent 80 million spams in a year; that's more than the number of humans (including infants) in their target market. These messages weren't completely unsolicited. The people who had received them had opted-in to receive marketing messages, but the opt-in wasn't clear about exactly what type of messages would be sent and so the consent was deemed invalid. 80 million messages is a lot, but it's a perfectly reasonable total for a large company with millions of customers. >but before issuing a fine, the ICO will write several times, explaining the problem and suggesting remedies. To get fined at all, HelloFresh must have ignored these letters. This is simply untrue. The ICO has fined numerous organisations for a one-off breach - in one case, for using CC instead of BCC when sending a single email to 105 people. The ICO stated in their penalty notice that HelloFresh had fully cooperated with the investigation; failure to cooperate is an aggravating factor, but it is absolutely not a prerequisite for a fine. https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/mpns/4018736/mpn-hiv-scotland-20211018.pdf https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/mpns/4018736/mpn-...

jdietrich 3y ago

>They sent 80 million spams in a year; that's more than the number of humans (including infants) in their target market. These messages weren't completely unsolicited. The people who had received them had opted-in to receive marketing messages, but the opt-in wasn't clear about exactly what type of messages would be sent and so the consent was deemed invalid. 80 million messages is a lot, but it's a perfectly reasonable total for a large company with millions of customers. >but before issuing a fine, the ICO will write several times, explaining the problem and suggesting remedies. To get fined at all, HelloFresh must have ignored these letters. This is simply untrue. The ICO has fined numerous organisations for a one-off breach - in one case, for using CC instead of BCC when sending a single email to 105 people. The ICO stated in their penalty notice that HelloFresh had fully cooperated with the investigation; failure to cooperate is an aggravating factor, but it is absolutely not a prerequisite for a fine. https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/mpns/4018736/mpn-hiv-scotland-20211018.pdf https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/mpns/4018736/mpn-...