The Register (protected by Cloudflare; archived copy) reports:
A UK firm found responsible for orchestrating 99.5 million nuisance calls has been fined a record £400,000 (US$517,550) by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
[...] The calls, made over an 18-month period, punted services related to road traffic accident claims and PPI compensation. Some people received repeat calls, sometimes during unsociable hours. Keurboom routinely hid its identity [...]
The BBC's coverage notes:
Keurboom director Greg Rudd told the Mirror newspaper that he found cold-calling "annoying" but said it was "part of life".
"I don't enjoy receiving them but that doesn't make them illegal," he said.
However the ICO said making automatic marketing calls without people's consent was illegal.
[...] In October, the government announced plans to let the ICO fine company directors as well as their businesses.
"Making directors responsible will stop them avoiding fines by putting their company into liquidation," the ICO said.
According to the stories, the company "has been placed in liquidation."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday May 12 2017, @05:53AM (5 children)
I haven't had coffee yet, but that looks like half-a-cent per call. That's not a penalty. That's just overhead.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday May 12 2017, @06:19AM
People responsible for robocalls should be forced to answer them 20 hours a day until they freely choose to strangle themselves with the phone cord.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday May 12 2017, @06:26AM (3 children)
Not even that - the fine can't be levied against the liquidated company, so the fine is the next step beyond "tokenistic".
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @07:05AM (2 children)
>"Making directors responsible will stop them avoiding fines by putting their company into liquidation," the ICO said.
As stated in the summary this is a good first step. A reasonable punishment for the directors would be proportionate to the amount of damage they have called. Chemical castration seems like the obvious choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @07:07AM (1 child)
Chemical? I'd suggest blunt!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @03:03PM
The Guillotine.