Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 488 (21 April 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that consent under GDPR and PECR is an objective concept and that the High Court erred by treating the claimant’s gambling vulnerability as vitiating consent.
The Tribunal dismissed Mr Bishop’s appeal against a £50,000 monetary penalty for unsolicited direct marketing calls breaching PECR.
The appellant's commercial relationship with AT, including financial incentives and contractual arrangements, constituted 'instigation' under reg 21 PECR. The breaches were serious and negligent, not deliberate. The penalty imposed was justified but required reduction to reflect negligence rather than deliberateness.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal dismissed Quick Tax Claims Ltd’s appeal against a £120,000 monetary penalty for unlawful direct marketing SMS breaches under PECR.
The Tribunal dismissed Quick Tax Claims Ltd’s appeal against an ICO Enforcement Notice, finding unsolicited SMS marketing breached PECR rules on consent and opt-out.
RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 111 (KB) (23 January 2025)
The High Court held that online gambling direct marketing and cookie-based profiling were unlawful for a vulnerable claimant because valid consent was not obtained.
The Tribunal dismissed an appeal against a £50,000 PECR monetary penalty for unsolicited SMS marketing and refused strike-out, withdrawal, and costs applications.
JTT's consent statements and privacy policies failed to provide sufficiently specific and informed consent for direct marketing emails as required by regulation 22 PECR and Article 4(11) GDPR. The breach was serious due to the volume of emails and JTT ought to have known the risk, justifying the Monetary Penalty Notice.
Source excerpt
The Appellant made unsolicited direct marketing calls to numbers registered with the TPS for over 28 days without obtaining valid consent, failed to conduct adequate due diligence, and acted negligently. The contravention was serious given the scale and aggravating factors. The Information Commissioner’s decision to impose a monetary penalty of £150,000 was in accordance with the law, appropriate, and proportionate.
Source excerpt
Rancom Security Limited made unsolicited direct marketing calls to TPS-registered numbers without evidence of consent, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the contravention despite prior regulatory warnings, and the explanations offered were unsubstantiated. The contravention was serious, negligent, and justified the imposition of a monetary penalty of £110,000, which was proportionate and lawful.
Source excerpt
Explore more
