comments2

2026-11-12 08:16:08 +02:00

Corli

Not fully

Political Party Loophole

2026-11-11 11:31:52 +02:00

Ashley

Not fully

Undermining Express Consent

Exceptions for express consent or the ability for users to selectively allow an organization in on the portal in an exclusions list while maintaining a blanket block on all others would be preferable.

Political Parties & NGO's should not be except; but as options for the consumer to block as a category.

Querying the database for cleansing should not incur a charge per blocked record, which is too much a burden on SMMEs / NGOs;
Funding should come from an affordable base subscription.

2026-11-10 15:37:02 +02:00

Tegan

No I do not

All of the above

Political Party Loophole

2026-11-10 15:08:20 +02:00

Righard

Not fully

All of the above

Penalising Non-Profits & Charities

I support the introduction of a National Opt-Out Registry to protect South Africans from unwanted marketing calls, SMSs and spam. However, the regulations should apply equally to everyone, including political parties, without exemptions. Small businesses and non-profit organisations should not face unnecessary costs or administrative burdens. Consumers deserve the right to privacy and control over unsolicited communications, but the system must be fair, affordable and practical for everyone.

2026-11-10 07:21:44 +02:00

Justin

Not fully

All of the above

Excessive Costs & Monthly Red-Tape for SMMEs

Supports establishing a binding national opt-out registry to halt nuisance marketing calls, but demands the removal of political party exemptions, complete fee exemptions for registered NPOs and community charities, lighter compliance burdens for SMMEs, and the protection of voluntary, direct consumer opt-ins

2026-11-09 20:26:53 +02:00

Chantel

Not fully

Other

The fact that you need to pay for a service. It should be free. Privacy should by default be my right and not a means for someone to make profit out of my preferences for protection.

2026-11-09 18:59:13 +02:00

Werner

Not fully

Political Party Loophole

Statutory Opt-Out Registry
A CPA opt-in mechanism does not require a parallel opt-out mechanism.
Enforcement & Penalties
Criminal records and prison sentences over administrative marketing list errors should only count after a number of ever increasing fines, linked to the turnover of a business. 10%, 20%, 30% - then criminal record.
Political Campaigning
Politicians should NEVER be allowed to exploit a loophole and SPAM users.
Fresh Consent Restrictions
A citizen has the right to explicitly decide for themselves whether to subscribe to updates from a specific brand or local business. But, they also have the right to unsubscribe and have action taken against the person or business if it is ignored.

2026-11-08 20:20:47 +02:00

Stan

Not fully

All of the above

Penalising Non-Profits & Charities

2026-11-07 04:48:41 +02:00

Jenn

Yes I do

Failure to Target Rogue & Offshore Spammers

2026-11-06 11:40:40 +02:00

M

No I do not

All of the above

Excessive Costs & Monthly Red-Tape for SMMEs

Its a silent tax on business - We can bearly make ends meet and keep a handful of people employed so they too can keep food on the table.
Everyone needs to be contacted when they need services of some sort - you might as well just put duck tape on everyone's moth and shoot the economy in the foot - people HAVE TO COMMUNICATE or no one will ever know what services are available to purchase.
Its ok to share information with people
Its ok to want to buy something from people I talk to
ITs ok to want to sell what I have to a willing buyer.

2026-11-05 15:52:35 +02:00

Melaina

Not fully

All of the above

Undermining Express Consent

Consent given after a block
Paragraphs 12.2 and 12.3, and FAQ 11
The issue: Paragraph 12.3 states that fresh consent does not override a pre-emptive block unless the consumer removes the block. We object to this position, for the following reasons:
● It overrides the consumer's most recent, specific choice. A pre-emptive block is a general instruction, often registered against a whole industry or channel. Consent given later to a specific company is a deliberate, informed choice made with that company in mind. Treating the earlier, general instruction as overriding the later, specific one disregards the consumer's wishes rather than protecting them.
● Marketing a consumer has asked for is not unwanted. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act is concerned with the consumer's right to refuse and to block unwanted direct marketing. A newsletter or update that a consumer has actively signed up for, after registering a block, is by definition wanted.
● It goes further than the Act and sits uneasily with POPIA. The Consumer Protection Act does not expressly address consent given after a pre-emptive block. Section 69 of the Protection of Personal Information Act permits electronic direct marketing to a person who has given consent. Paragraph 12.3 introduces a restriction that neither Act expressly imposes, and creates a conflict that marketers will struggle to apply consistently.
● It places an unrealistic burden on consumers. A consumer who blocked an industry because of unwanted calls must return to the registry and narrow their block before they can receive a newsletter they have chosen. Most consumers will not know to do this and are not likely to take the trouble to do so.
● It discourages good practice. Responsible marketers invest in clear, documented, consent-based relationships. Paragraph 12.3 treats that consent as worthless for any consumer who has registered a block, removing the incentive to build lists the right way.
Our proposal: Amend paragraph 12.3 so that consent given to a specific direct marketer after the date of a pre-emptive block is recognised, provided that:
● the consent is given after the date on which the block was registered;
● it is specific to the named direct marketer and to the channel concerned;
● it is freely given, informed and recorded, including the date, time, source and wording of the consent;
● the burden of proving valid consent rests on the direct marketer; and
● the consumer can withdraw that consent at any time, easily and free of charge.

2026-11-05 00:10:12 +02:00

Kaunda

Not fully

Unreasonable 15-Day Public Comment Window

I support a binding national opt-out registry to halt nuisance marketing calls. I do not agree with the political party exemptions and want to see complete fee exemptions for registered NPOs and community charities. The comment window was also too small.

2026-11-02 13:41:27 +02:00

M

No I do not

All of the above

Unreasonable 15-Day Public Comment Window

2026-11-02 10:55:41 +02:00

Matthew

Not fully

Excessive Costs & Monthly Red-Tape for SMMEs

2026-11-02 07:30:11 +02:00

Andile

Yes I do

Penalising Non-Profits & Charities