Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 30 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 | ||
2026-11-01 14:42:28 +02:00 | Jaco | No I do not | All of the above | Political Party Loophole | |
2026-10-29 14:51:48 +02:00 | Chris | Not fully | All of the above | Undermining Express Consent | I support the complete ban on ALL spam calls and messages, unless they can proof that they do have clear written permission from the person they are calling to do so. It is not the public that should deregister, but rather the spam callers that must proof that they do have the receiver's clear and written permission to do so, since not everybody has the ability to deregister. Rather get rid of the spam rubbish, than to create another useless top-heavy system that does not work. |
2026-10-28 13:48:34 +02:00 | Darryl | Not fully | Political Party Loophole | ||
2026-10-27 19:37:57 +02:00 | Aviva | Not fully | All of the above | Failure to Target Rogue & Offshore Spammers | |
2026-10-27 18:27:03 +02:00 | Alan | No I do not | Undermining Express Consent | ||
2026-10-26 12:22:17 +02:00 | Theo | Not fully | Other | I am unsure if the state has the ability to enforce this. They have been unable to keep the power and water on. What is going to make this work? | |
2026-10-26 12:21:43 +02:00 | Stefan | No I do not | All of the above | Unreasonable 15-Day Public Comment Window | |
2026-10-25 12:53:28 +02:00 | Rashid | Yes I do | All of the above | Failure to Target Rogue & Offshore Spammers | |
2026-10-25 04:24:41 +02:00 | Zimele | Not fully | Political Party Loophole | Political parties should not be exempt, especially when charitable organisations are classified as commercial marketers. These classes should hold different approaches to the financial contributions such as, a complete fee exemptions for registered NPOs and community charities, lighter compliance burdens for SMMEs, and the protection of voluntary, direct consumer opt-ins. | |
2026-10-24 16:39:53 +02:00 | Hennie | Yes I do | All of the above | Undermining Express Consent | |
2026-10-24 04:48:00 +02:00 | Christa | Not fully | All of the above | Penalising Non-Profits & Charities | |
2026-10-24 01:41:00 +02:00 | Yuro | Not fully | Undermining Express Consent | ||
2026-10-23 10:36:04 +02:00 | Veon | Yes I do | Failure to Target Rogue & Offshore Spammers | ||
2026-10-22 21:18:09 +02:00 | Lawrence | Not fully | Failure to Target Rogue & Offshore Spammers | Set hours that those exempted to day time and working days. After hours and weekends sould be free of the invasive calls. | |
2026-10-22 13:53:54 +02:00 | Hendrieka | Not fully | Political Party Loophole | I support establishing a binding national opt-out registry to halt nuisance marketing calls from local and international sources, but request the removal of political party exemptions, complete fee exemptions for registered NPOs and community charities, and the protection of voluntary, direct consumer opt-ins.) |
-
- Statutory Opt-Out Registry
Replaces the voluntary, toothless industry list with a centralised, state-administered statutory registry with real enforcement powers. - Enforcement & Penalties
Enforces accountability by backing registry blocks with National Consumer Tribunal administrative fines and criminal penalties of up to 12 months imprisonment. - 12-Cent Cleansing Fee
Shifts the operational cost of privacy protection onto commercial direct marketers who profit from consumer databases, sparing taxpayers. - Political Campaigning
Political participation and democratic canvassing are constitutionally protected activities distinct from commercial sales pitches. - NPO / Charity Inclusion
Financial solicitations are invasive regardless of who initiates them; consumers deserve protection from aggressive donation requests. - Fresh Consent Restrictions
Prevents unscrupulous corporate marketers from tricking consumers into signing away their opt-out block via buried contract clauses.
- Statutory Opt-Out Registry
-
- Statutory Opt-Out Registry
South Africa already enacted an opt-in model under POPIA Section 69; introducing a parallel CPA opt-out mechanism creates legal ambiguity and administrative conflict. - Enforcement & Penalties
Threatening small business owners with criminal records and prison sentences over administrative marketing list errors is disproportionate and heavy-handed. - 12-Cent Cleansing Fee
Imposes an ongoing, compounding monthly financial drain on small businesses and non-profits that lack the budgets of massive corporations. - Political Campaigning
Carves out a self-serving loophole for politicians to inundate citizens’ phones during election cycles while everyday citizens cannot opt out. - NPO / Charity Inclusion
Starves community non-profits by treating charitable funding appeals identically to predatory corporate telemarketing schemes. - Fresh Consent Restrictions
Paternalistically invalidates a citizen’s explicit decision to subscribe to updates from a specific brand or local business.
- Statutory Opt-Out Registry