The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy
InternKats: Rose Hughes, Ieva Giedrimaite, and Cecilia Sbrolli
SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), and Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent).

Tuesday, 9 December 2003


Following action by the UK’s Office of Fair Trading (OFT), the High Court has granted an interim injunction against Christopher Yewdall to stop his involvement in misleading advertising for data protection notification services. The OFT claimed Yewdall was involved with misleading advertisements relating to notification with the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act 1998. Yewdall’s ads used phoney terms such as Data Protection Agency, Data Protection Agency Registrations, Data Protection Agency Services, National Registrations, Data Protection Registration and Data Protection Registration Services. The OFT received thousands of complaints from businesses regarding these adverts, which used return addresses all over the country. Yewdall had previously given written assurances to the OFT that he would not be involved with such advertising. The OFT considers that such adverts are misleading because they give the impression they are from an official body, that the businesses receiving them are under a legal obligation to register with the sender and that notification costs £95. They also fail to properly explain which persons are exempt from notification under the Data Protection Act 1998. Most businesses processing personal data are required by law to notify the Information Commissioner, but many small businesses that process data for limited purposes are exempt from notification. Businesses that do need to do so can notify the Information Commissioner directly, for a fee of only £35.

The IPKat reminds readers of his “no-mark” proposal (see today's earlier “Win Kampf” blog). This is yet another example of a situation in which a public agency, as the proud owner of the DATA PROTECTION no-mark, could stop any trade usage of terms identical or similar to it.

British data protection cons here and here
More misleading ads here, here and here

No comments:

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':