LCQ11: Regulation of person-to-person telemarketing calls
8.6.2022

Following is a question by the Hon Kenneth Lau and a written reply by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Mr Edward Yau, in the Legislative Council today (June 8): Question: At present, the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance (Cap. 593) does not regulate person-to-person (P2P) telemarketing calls (P2P calls), while the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) only regulates P2P calls involving the use of personal data. In April 2019, the Government consulted the relevant panel of this Council on its proposed legislative framework for regulating P2P calls. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council: (1) whether it has assessed the current situation of P2P calls, including (i) the daily average number of such calls received by each member of the public, (ii) the industries to which the organisations conducting the telemarketing belong, (iii) the channels through which such organisations obtain data such as telephone numbers of members of the public, and (iv) the percentage of such calls involving the use of personal data of members of the public for which the prior consent of the data subjects has been obtained; (2) given that the Government has, since 2010, actively encouraged the trade associations of the four sectors which have made most of the P2P calls (namely finance, insurance, telecommunications and call centres) to formulate and promulgate their respective codes of practice on P2P calls, whether it has assessed the effectiveness of such a self-regulatory measure; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) of the latest progress of the legislative exercise for strengthening the regulation of P2P calls; and (4) of the number of complaints relating to the use of personal data in P2P telemarketing activities that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data referred to the Police in each of the past five years and, among such complaints, the number of those cases in which the persons concerned were convicted? Reply: President, In consultation with the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau and the Security Bureau, my reply to the Member's question is as follows: (1) Bureaux/departments of the Government do not maintain sufficient data to assess the situation of person-to-person telemarketing calls (P2P calls). (2) To minimise the nuisance caused to the public by P2P calls, the Government has actively encouraged trade associations of the four sectors, namely finance, insurance, telecommunications and call centres, to draw up their respective codes of practice (CoP) on P2P calls since late 2010 to regulate the practices in making P2P calls on a voluntary basis (such as calling hours, revealing the identity of the telemarketers and honouring unsubscribe requests, etc). Since June 2011, the trade associations of the above four sectors have introduced their respective self-regulatory schemes. Among others, the finance sector improved its CoP in May 2014 by requiring telemarketers to take initiative in providing their names and official contact numbers to the call recipients. This enables the call recipients to verify the identities of the telemarketers. Implementation of the CoP has been effective in minimising the nuisance caused by P2P calls. The number of enquiries and complaints related to P2P calls received by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau and the Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA) have drastically reduced since the implementation of the CoP, as tabulated below: Year Overall number of cases of enquiries and complaints related to P2P calls received 2012 2 010 2013 1 693 2014 1 215 2015 1 472 2016 648 2017 480 2018 321 2019 257 2020 236 2021 241 (3) The Government conducted a public consultation on "Strengthening the Regulation of P2P Calls" in 2017 and briefed the Legislative Council Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting in April 2018 and April 2019 on the consultation findings and the proposed way forward. Members had diverse views on whether the regulation of P2P should be strengthened. In response to the challenges faced by Hong Kong's economy, along with the development of COVID-19 pandemic, the Government needs to review the latest situation including whether the regulation of P2P calls would affect normal business activities in particular the small and medium enterprises as well as the business sector which are more reliant on deploying different remote means, including P2P calls, to maintain their business operations. Moreover, overseas experience in regulation of such calls has revealed considerable difficulties in the actual operation and enforcement by the relevant regulatory regimes, in areas such as challenges in collection of evidence, seeking assistance from foreign law enforcement agencies, prosecution, differentiating normal business activities from P2P calls, how to effectively block nuisance calls, etc. We need to balance a variety of factors before deciding whether and how to follow up on the matter. Currently, we do not have concrete action timetable for such work. Relevant government departments will continue to carry out publicity and public education in order to mitigate the nuisance caused by P2P calls to the general public. For instance, OFCA has uploaded onto its website information on smart use of call-filtering applications in smartphones. OFCA has also organised related seminars and exhibitions for public in the past. Besides, the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer has launched the Enriched ICT Training Programme for the Elderly incorporating modules in relevant courses provided by the participating Elder Academies to introduce to the elderly information on rejecting or filtering phone calls. In addition, from August 2015 onwards, OFCA has required each telecommunications operator to insert a "+" sign in the calling number display of the mobile phones (such as "+852") for all incoming calls originating from outside Hong Kong. This enables the public to identify suspicious calls (including P2P calls) originating from outside Hong Kong but masqueraded as local Hong Kong numbers, and stay vigilant in answering them. (4) In the past five years, for P2P-call-related complaints involving the use of personal data, the yearly number of cases referred to the Police by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) and the number of convicted cases are tabulated below: Year Number of cases referred to the Police by the PCPD Number of convicted cases 2017 18 3 2018 6 2 2019 6 2 2020 8 1 2021 20 0