Eircom, recently rebranded as Eir, has been told to pay €35,000 to charity for illegally sending marketing texts and making phone calls to customers who did not want to receive them.
The company was before the Dublin District Court on Monday for a series of prosecutions taken by the Data Protection Commissioner.
In one case, a man who had been receiving multiple calls from Eircom’s marketing staff said they were bordering on ‘harassment’ and that he had completely lost patience and trust in the company to resolve the matter.
In another instance, a marketing text message without an opt-out option was sent out to over 11,000 customers.
Assistant data protection commissioner Tony Delaney, who investigated the complaints, told the court Eircom was one of the most complained of companies in relation to direct marketing offences and that none had had a higher number of complaints last year.
He noted the commissioner had, in her annual report for 2014, singled out Eircom for a case study and called for them to do better in this area.
“This is symptomatic of wider issues than just marketing. We get complaints about many other issues,” Mr Delaney said under examination by the commissioner’s counsel Ronan Kennedy BL.
Outlining his case against the company, Mr Delaney said one customer, Hugh Kane, made a complaint in May 2013 about unsolicited regular calls at tea time and late in the evening. The calls were numerous and an “unawanted intrusion” into Mr Kane’s privacy.
Even after the Data Protection Commissioner commenced an investigation and the company telling it Mr Kane had been opted out, he continued to receive calls. The commissioner’s investigation established that he had received “of the order of 50 communications” since he left Eircom in 2009.
Judge John O’Neill told Joe Jeffers BL, counsel for Eircom, he had listened to a catalogue of promises, undertakings and reassurances from the company that had been all “blatantly ignored”.
“The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing in that company,” he said.
Mr Jeffers said there was “absolutely no sugar-coating” the situation.
“It’s absolutely unacceptable. The company accepts that,” he said.
The company wanted to apologise to all those customers affected, he said.
It was willing to make a very considerable charitable donation in line with the maximum fines that could apply to these charges, the court heard.
Judge O’Neill said the company had a bad attitude towards consumers, who relied on it as being a reputable company. “But their reputation is eroding,” he said.
Asking whether it was better that he imposed fines or that charities benefit, the judge said he believed the latter was the answer.
He adjourned the matter to December 16th and said if Eircom made a contribution of €15,000 to Pieta House, €10,000 to the Laura Lynn Foundation and €10,000 to the Children's Hospital Crumlin, he would apply the Probation Act.
If the payments were not made by then he would convict and fine the company.
The court heard Eircom was previously convicted of two similar marketing offences in December 2013 and was fined €1,500 on each charge.
Its E-mobile arm was prosecuted in 2012 after it lost laptops containing the personal data of customers.
It was also charged in 2011 with making a call to someone on the national opt-out register for marketing cals.
Mr Delaney said he had, in effect, been in court prosecuting Eircom “every second year” for marketing offences.
Separately, Imagine Telecommunications Business Limited pleaded guilty to one charge of making an unsolicited marketing phone call without consent and was ordered to donate €2,500 to Merchant’s Quay Ireland.
Both defendants covered the commissioner’s legal costs.
Welcoming the outcome, Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon said data protection was about “the citizen’s fundamental right to privacy”.
“My office treats offences in relation to electronic marketing extremely seriously, vigorously prosecuting repeat offenders. The significant sums imposed today send a clear message that this type of marketing without consent is unacceptable.”