Law prohibiting spam calls is observed for the second time

He Executive power observed yesterday, the Autograph of the Law that modifies Law 29571Consumer Protection and Defense Code, in order to expand the prohibition of SPAM communications because it does not have adequate justification within the framework of current regulations. The norm had already been observed in May of this year and the Legislature presented a new replacement text in September.

Thus, the Executive maintains that the norm does not develop the arguments that support how the proposed modifications to literals d) and e) of numeral 58.1 of article 58 of the Consumer Protection and Defense Code could provide a solution to the problem related to constant communications. SPAM that consumers receive, “If it has been identified that the solution to the aforementioned problem involves a fairly broad field of action and would require the articulated intervention of various institutions and the private sector,” he warns.

In this sense, he comments that the modification proposed to literal e) does not represent a change to the current situation regulated in the Consumer Protection and Defense Code and in the provisions that regulate personal data, which is why it would be unnecessary as the new wording authorizes suppliers to communicate with consumers if they request it directly from them or if they manage to obtain their authorization, consequently maintaining the same existing situation for consumers and suppliers, without representing a real change given that suppliers would maintain their power in force. to communicate with consumers for commercial purposes, with prior consent.

In addition, it is emphasized that the operating companies carry out technical visits to the user’s home with the purpose of installing the service or resolving possible breakdowns. These visits are planned together with the subscriber of the public telecommunications service, considering its availability.

However, I note that there is a lack of clarity as to whether these specific practices are included or excluded in the scope of the aforementioned literal. This is because the reference to “commercial practices” is posed generically. Therefore, it is suggested that it be precisely clarified whether these activities fall within or outside the established prohibition.

“The Autograph is not beneficial for consumers nor does it represent changes in the telemarketing sector, so we suggest that other more effective measures be evaluated to avoid non-consensual visits or communications, such as the implementation of lists or directories identifying suppliers or obligations on operators to block this type of communications,” concludes the Executive.