CBA Got a Spamming Fine of $3.55 Million - Right or Wrong?

Commonwealth Bank penalised $3.55 million for spam breaches

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) has paid a record $3.55 million penalty after it sent more than 65 million emails that did not comply with Australia’s spam laws.

An Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) investigation found CBA sent more than 61 million marketing emails to customers that unlawfully required them to log-in to unsubscribe. CBA sent a further 4 million marketing emails that did not have a functioning unsubscribe facility.

The CBA was also found to have sent more than 5,000 marketing emails to customers who had asked to unsubscribe from these messages.

ACMA Chair Nerida O’Loughlin said companies must give people the option to unsubscribe from marketing messages and must make it easy to do so when consumers want to exercise their rights.

“The scale and duration of the breaches by the CBA is alarming, especially when the ACMA gave it early warnings it might have some issues and the steps it took were ineffective. The failure to fix the issues shows a complete disregard for the spam rules and the rights of its customers,” said Ms O’Loughlin.

“Consumers are frustrated by marketing intrusions on their privacy, especially when there is no option, or it is difficult, to unsubscribe,” Ms O’Loughlin said.

This is the largest penalty imposed by the ACMA for breaches of the spam laws. In addition, the ACMA has accepted a three-year court-enforceable undertaking from CBA committing it to an independent review of its e-marketing practices and to implement improvements. CBA must also give regular compliance reports to the ACMA and train its staff on Australia’s spam laws.

The Spam Act 2003 requires marketing messages to contain working unsubscribe facilities. Making consumers log-in or provide personal details to unsubscribe is also generally prohibited. Once a message recipient has unsubscribed, sending further marketing messages is also against the law.

“We continue to see large and well-known businesses who should know better than breaching the spam laws. This action is a further warning to all businesses that non-compliance with Australia’s spam laws will not be tolerated,” Ms O'Loughlin said.

“We will be closely monitoring the Commonwealth Bank’s compliance and the commitments it has made to review its practices. If we find future non-compliance, we will not hesitate to take further action.”

Poll Options

  • 80
    right
  • 0
    wrong
  • 10
    don't care

Related Stores

Commonwealth Bank
Commonwealth Bank

Comments

  • What do you think about it, OP?

    • +1

      I tend to agree with the fine as they keep spamming me with a tease that I was approved for step pay and then after a lenthy application they refuse.

  • +2

    If you are a customer, right
    Share holder, wrong

      • +1

        forget to add, if you are a customer as well as share holder, don't care lol

        • My car got smashed up on a parking lot by a comminsured vehicle.
          During the claim procedure CBA sold their insurance arm to get out of paying.
          So am I a happy customer?

          • @payless69: can't make everyone happy right?

          • +6

            @payless69:

            During the claim procedure CBA sold their insurance arm to get out of paying.

            "This guy really wants his $5k from us, should I write him a cheque or should we sell our entire insurance arm?" -the man who ran comminsurance, according to payless69's reliable imagination

  • +14

    Spamming fines should apply to politicians/parties and charities too. Stupid exemptions, those are.

    • +2

      Especially for these guys, pcyclottery.org.au

    • You mean those junk cards / leaflets / letters that they shoved into our mailbox ?

      • +1

        Nope, I'm referring to electronic means (sms, phone, email). Stuff like what Craig Kelly sent out last year during the elections or charities constantly calling for surveys or donations.

  • +3

    It is obviously right (correct) as OP has quoted the actual ACMA ruling

  • +2

    Isn't the bigger question about where that fine goes to? And what it can be used for?

    I keep seeing companies being fined for various matters that impact on consumers, but consumers never seem to get compensation (unless they take out their own legal cases).

    • -5

      about where that fine goes to?

      Guess

      • +1

        You don't really like that dude don't you, time to move ? lol

        • -2

          Federal government is Labor, therefore Dan is the leader of Australia.

        • -3

          You don't really like that dude

          Do you ?

      • The Australian Communications and Media Authority is an independent Commonwealth statutory authority, which regulates communications and media services in Australia.
        The CBA head office is located in Sydney NSW

        Move on, or move out.

        • I think the money goes to the federal government, not to the state government or Dan
          Unless Dan creates a project and ask for funds from Fed.

          • -3

            @boomramada:

            Unless Dan creates a project and ask for funds from Fed.

            and you think that has happened before?

            • -1

              @jv: Then again $3.5m is like peanuts, Dan gets more than that for his lockdown projects.?

        • +1

          that's the trouble with letting tenants stay in your head rent-free, they never seem to move out!

  • ACMA gave it early warnings it might have some issues and the steps it took were ineffective.

    There is really no harm in receiving a marketing email that is sent in error. I'm all for regulator education wherever possible.

    But knowing about it and not giving a stuff really left ACMA with no option.

  • +1

    What's it cost for a developer that understands email, like 100k a year? Plus they are obviously already paying at least one email and website guy if they are sending 65 million emails and have a website. Would have cost them nothing extra to comply with the law. Even the most lazily assembled Wordpress blog will let you unsubscribe to emails without logging in by default. CBA probably went out of their way to make it harder to unsubscribe.

    • A bit like Ford when they refused to listen to the engineers about a dangerous fuel tank on the Pinto: We can save 50 millions by paying 25 for a few deaths. Good for the shareholders? Or like Boeing: Why have acas sensor redundancy if the planes only crash in Africa?

    • +1

      Tell me you have no idea about the complexities of running a marketing engine to a large customer base.
      I’m not excusing them for getting it wrong but there’s more to it than ‘an email and a website guy’.

  • I'm glad I moved away from CBA, also really annoyed I had to go into a branch just to close the accounts.

  • +1

    6c per email is probably pretty cost effective relative to normal untargeted advertising. If I were them, I'd do it again. Fine was puny. Fine also doesn't go to those who suffered CBA email.

Login or Join to leave a comment