# summary

- Link: https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/opt-out-registry/summary/
- Published: 2026-10-02T16:14:01+02:00
- Author: dearSA

_Advert_

_Advert – scroll down_

[ have your say](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/opt-out-registry/#havasay)

Executive Summary
 This executive briefing contextualises the public consultation
initiated by the National Consumer Commission (NCC) regarding the Draft Guidelines
for Compliance with Opt-Out Registry Regulations, promulgated under Government Notice
No. 7981, Government Gazette No. 55465 on 2 October 2026.

The regulatory framework operationalises the long-delayed National Opt-Out Registry
authorised by Section 11(3) and Section 120 of the Consumer Protection Act No. 68
of 2008 (CPA), read in conjunction with the CPA Amendment Regulations of 2026. The
guidelines introduce a centralised, state-administered statutory registry designed
to give effect to a consumer’s fundamental right to pre-emptively block unsolicited
direct marketing across telephone, SMS, messaging applications, and automated dialing
systems.

The administrative mechanism mandates that all direct marketers register annually
and execute monthly database cleansing by submitting their contact lists to the 
NCC online registry. Marketers are required to pay a prescribed fee of 12 cents 
per registered entry, with cleansed lists carrying a 30-day validity window. Direct
marketers are legally bound to suppress all blocked entries, display full sender
identification, and respect both general and sector-specific pre-emptive blocks.
Contraveners face rigorous enforcement, including investigations, administrative
penalties from the National Consumer Tribunal, and criminal liability carrying prison
terms of up to 12 months.

While the registry provides an essential enforcement weapon against pervasive telemarketing
harassment, several structural flashpoints require intensive public scrutiny during
the 15-day consultation period ending 17 October 2026:

    - _The Political Party Exemption: _
       The exclusion of political campaigning 
      from the definition of direct marketing under FAQ 16 shields vote-seeking 
      political parties from opt-out blocks while private citizens’ privacy remains
      unprotected during elections.
    - _The Non-Profit Donation Trap: _
       Categorising charitable donation requests
      under direct marketing forces community non-profits and public benefit organisations
      into the same expensive compliance regime as corporate call centres.
    - _SMME Operational Drag: _
       The requirement for monthly database cleansing 
      at 12 cents per entry, valid for only 30 days, introduces recurring administrative
      costs that disproportionately affect micro-enterprises, sole proprietors, 
      and small businesses.
    - _Invalidation of Mutual Consent: _
       The policy determination that fresh, post-
      block express consent does not override an existing registry block restricts
      normal commercial freedom and disrupts direct business-to-consumer relationships.
    - _Procedural Unfairness: _
       The 15-day public comment window fails to afford
      adequate time for meaningful stakeholder input under Section 33 of the Constitution
      and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).

Public participation via the Dear South Africa platform will channel individual 
civic submissions directly to the NCC’s legal desk, establishing a formal administrative
paper trail to demand an effective anti-spam regime that protects consumer privacy
without penalising civil society or small businesses.

### _Questions and answers_

[What is the National Opt-Out Registry?](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/opt-out-registry/summary/#1763554389233-fdb8fee6-6da45520-2543bf43-9383)

The National Opt-Out Registry is a centralised database administered by the National
Consumer Commission (NCC) under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. It allows
consumers to register a free “pre-emptive block” to stop receiving unwanted direct
marketing communications via telephone, SMS, email, messaging applications, or automated
robocalls.

[What is the difference between a "General" and a "Specific" pre-emptive block?](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/opt-out-registry/summary/#1763554389265-aa09206a-77665520-2543bf43-9383)

A General Pre-Emptive Block stops all direct marketing across all industries and
communication channels. A Specific Pre-Emptive Block allows consumers to target 
specific channels (e.g., blocking only phone calls but allowing email) or restrict
marketing from particular business sectors or specific companies.

[When does the public comment period close?](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/opt-out-registry/summary/#1763554389298-fbc55a3c-817c5520-2543bf43-9383)

The draft guidelines were published on 2 October 2026 with a 15-calendar-day comment
window, making the official deadline 17 October 2026. Submissions must be delivered
to the NCC legal desk via J.Mbeje@thencc.org.za and N.Ngobeni@thencc.org.za.

[Are political parties allowed to spam me with campaign messages?](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/opt-out-registry/summary/#1771840733358-e4b2d08e-b226bf43-9383)

Under FAQ 16 of the draft guidelines, yes. The NCC states that political campaigning
for votes does not constitute direct marketing under the CPA because the objective
is soliciting political support rather than selling goods or services. Political
organisations only fall under registry obligations if they solicit donations from
individuals or small juristic entities.

[How are charities and non-profit organisations (NPOs) affected?](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/opt-out-registry/summary/#1771840767171-e194ee95-bf82bf43-9383)

NPOs are not automatically exempt. Under the CPA, the definition of direct marketing
explicitly includes requesting a donation. Consequently, an animal shelter, charity
foundation, or religious outreach organisation asking the public for financial contributions
must register as a direct marketer, cleanse its list against the government database
every month, and pay 12 cents per registered entry.

[Does the registry ban all business communications?](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/opt-out-registry/summary/#1790948348396-f695d3d9-4d9c)

**No.** Ordinary business communications are fully permitted. A company can call
or message you to confirm an existing transaction, arrange a delivery, handle account
queries, provide customer support, or carry out a contractual obligation. However,
under Section 16, if an employee uses an account query as an excuse to pitch a new
product, that conversation immediately becomes direct marketing and must comply 
with opt-out rules.

[If I opt out, can I ever voluntarily subscribe to a company I like?](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/opt-out-registry/summary/#1790948389206-caf7c2d8-0949)

Under Section 12.3 and FAQ 11, fresh consent does not override a pre-emptive block.
If you register a pre-emptive block and later agree to receive marketing from a 
specific company, that company is legally barred from contacting you unless you 
proactively log into the government opt-out portal and remove or amend your block.

[What must a business do to comply with the new rules?](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/opt-out-registry/summary/#1790948417107-f877cf26-0c34)

Every business engaging in direct marketing must:

 1.  a. Register on the NCC Opt-Out Registry portal before conducting marketing.
     b. Renew registration annually.
     c. Submit its marketing database online every month it plans to market, paying 12
        cents per registered opt-out record to cleanse the list.
     d. Remove all blocked names and use the cleansed list within 30 days.
     e. Clearly state the sender’s business name, contact details, email, and physical
        address in every marketing message.

[What are the penalties for non-compliance?](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/opt-out-registry/summary/#1790948480933-4cdd26f0-d5ae)

Consumers can file complaints directly with the NCC. The Commission can investigate,
issue compliance notices, and refer marketers to the National Consumer Tribunal 
for administrative fines. In severe cases, offenders face criminal prosecution carrying
fines or imprisonment for up to 12 months.

[How does this relate to the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA)?](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/opt-out-registry/summary/#1790948511442-21395476-3bd5)

While POPIA Section 69 sets an opt-in principle (requiring consent before sending
unsolicited electronic communications), the CPA establishes an opt-out regime. The
NCC and the Information Regulator maintain that both frameworks operate complementarily,
meaning businesses must satisfy both POPIA consent rules and the CPA’s opt-out suppression
mandates.

The draft Opt-Out regulations

 ⌊Loader⌉ Loading...

 ⌊EAD Logo⌉ Taking too long?

 ⌊Reload⌉ Reload document

 | [ ⌊Open⌉ Open in new tab ](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/02154612/Opt-out-guidelines.pdf)

[Download [395.39 KB] ](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/02154612/Opt-out-guidelines.pdf)

### _In the News_

    - BusinessTech — [Say goodbye to spam calls in South Africa – with a big catch for political parties and charities](https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/877986/say-goodbye-to-spam-calls-in-south-africa-with-a-big-catch-for-political-parties-and-charities/)
    - Moonstone — [Direct marketers on notice as CPA spam rules become law](https://www.moonstone.co.za/direct-marketers-on-notice-as-cpa-spam-rules-become-law/)
    - BusinessDay — [Law cracks down on spam calls as marketers face fines or ban](https://www.businessday.co.za/news/2026-04-17-law-cracks-down-on-spam-calls-as-marketers-face-fines-or-ban/)
    - The Citizen — [Minister Parks Tau signs new rules to protect the public from spam calls](https://www.citizen.co.za/business/amendments-consumer-protection-act-parks-tau-dtic/)

### _Statements and media releases_

Click on a logo to view.

Want to display your organisation’s statement? [Click here. ](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/opt-out-registry/summary/ optout@dearsouthafrica.co.za?subject=org info for opt-out regs regulations info page)

Close

### Cape Independence Party

 **CAPEXIT Party strongly opposes the Business Licensing Bill in its entirety on
all points:**

**Preferential licensing**
 The Bill explicitly empowers the Minister to grant licences
on a “preferential” basis and to impose conditions that advance “historically disadvantaged
individuals” or other designated groups. This is nothing less than state-sanctioned
racial and ideological discrimination dressed up as transformation policy.

CAPEXIT rejects the notion that the state has any legitimate role in deciding which
racial or social group may or may not operate a business. Such preferential licensing
will:

    - Reintroduce apartheid-era economic controls under a new ideological banner;
    - Create a cronyist system where access to markets is determined by political
      connections and demographic criteria rather than merit, innovation or consumer
      demand;
    - Discourage both domestic and foreign investment, as investors will rightly
      fear that their businesses can be denied licences or subjected to arbitrary
      conditions on racial or political grounds.

No free society licenses businesses on the basis of the owner’s skin colour or historical
narrative. This clause alone renders the entire Bill unconstitutional and morally
indefensible.

**Principles of business licensing**
 The Bill fails to articulate any coherent,
objective, or proportionate principle for requiring a general business licence in
the first place. Instead, it presumes that every enterprise – from a street vendor
to a multinational corporation – must seek prior permission from the state simply
to exist and trade.

This reverses the fundamental principle of a free economy: citizens should be free
to engage in lawful economic activity without state permission unless there is a
clear, evidence-based justification (e.g. public health, safety or environmental
protection).

The Bill provides no such justification. It is a blanket assault on economic freedom,
reminiscent of the licence-permit raj that crippled India’s economy for decades.
Requiring a general “business licence” in addition to existing sector-specific permits(
liquor, health, zoning, etc.) serves no legitimate public purpose – only the purpose
of expanding state control and creating new opportunities for rent-seeking and corruption.

**Powers of inspectors**
 The Bill grants inspectors extraordinarily broad and invasive
powers, including warrantless entry into private premises, seizure of documents 
and goods, and the ability to close businesses on the spot. These powers are ripe
for abuse and will be weaponised against political opponents, non-compliant businesses,
and any entrepreneur who refuses to pay bribes.

In a country already plagued by corruption scandals, handing unelected officials
the power to enter and shut down businesses without judicial oversight is an open
invitation to extortion. Small businesses, spaza shops, and informal traders – many
of them immigrant-owned – will be particularly vulnerable to harassment and shakedowns.
Far from promoting transformation, this will simply create a new class of “licence
inspectors” who enrich themselves at the expense of the poor.

**More red tape**
 South Africa already ranks poorly on the World Bank’s Ease of
Doing Business index, largely because of regulatory overreach. This Bill adds yet
another layer of costly, time-consuming bureaucracy on top of SARS registration,
municipal permits, B-BBEE compliance, UIF, COIDA, sector SETA requirements, and 
dozens of other licences.

The compliance costs – application fees, mandatory consultations, endless paperwork,
and the risk of arbitrary refusal – will crush startups and force thousands of small
businesses to close or remain informal. Jobs will be lost, investment will flee,
and the tax base will shrink. The Western Cape, which has consistently outperformed
the rest of South Africa precisely because of lighter and more efficient regulation,
will see its competitive advantage deliberately sabotaged by Pretoria.

**Conclusion**
 The Business Licensing Bill is not reform – it is economic sabotage.
It centralises power in the hands of an already overreaching and underperforming
national government, reintroduces racial criteria into commerce, and erects new 
barriers to entrepreneurship at a time when South Africa desperately needs growth
and jobs.

CAPEXIT calls for the complete withdrawal of this Bill. The people of the Western
Cape, and indeed all South Africans who believe in freedom, will not accept a return
to a permit-based economy controlled by bureaucrats and political gatekeepers.

For a free, prosperous, and non-racial future, this Bill must be rejected in its
entirety.