Persistent advertising after a clear refusal: when contact becomes unfair

Item 26 of the UWG Annex refers to persistent and unwanted solicitation of consumers through specified distance communication channels. The wording covers telephone, fax, email and other media suitable for distance selling. The facts therefore require a concrete review of the contact history, not only the wording of one advertisement.

The factual record should connect the clear refusal, the type of later contacts, their intervals, the address data used and the apparent advertising purpose. Automated calls or repeated campaigns may also matter when they continue despite a clear suppression request.

Not every unwanted contact automatically falls under item 26. One message, an unclear objection or non advertising contract information must be assessed separately. Other rules, including those governing electronic communications, may also require their own review.

A clear refusal should be recorded with its wording, date, communication channel and the affected address or number. For a call, a factual note with the number and time can help. For email or forms, retain the complete headers and original message.

The later contacts should then be placed on one timeline. Record which team or service provider made contact, whether the advertising purpose was repeated and whether different brands, numbers or senders were used. One later contact may be assessed differently from a continuing series.

The advertising claims self-check helps organise the statement, audience and evidence. For this situation, the record must additionally show the refusal and the response as one connected timeline.

Telephone advertising can be documented with call lists, numbers, notes and telephone system records. For email or text messages, preserve the full messages, sender information, technical delivery data and the refusal. For post, messaging or other distance media, the advertising purpose and repetition remain relevant.

Businesses should not assess channels separately from suppression logic. An objection recorded by a call centre must reach the agency, sales team, newsletter system and automated follow up campaign. Internal responsibility does not change the communication that was actually delivered.

The article on email advertising and consent addresses newsletter delivery and customer relationships. It does not replace the review of a persistent contact series across several channels.

Item 26 provides an exception for cases and limits where the conduct is justified under national law to enforce a contractual obligation. That exception does not turn every message to an existing customer into permitted advertising. First establish which contract the message serves and what specific obligation is being performed or enforced.

An invoice, necessary delivery information or objectively required contract administration must be distinguished from an additional sales offer. If one message combines both, content, design, audience and purpose should be reviewed separately. Calling something a service message or customer information does not decide the question.

Advertising to existing customers may also be governed by other rules. The article on aggressive commercial practices addresses general pressure and influence. This article focuses on persistent and unwanted solicitation under item 26.

A reliable campaign needs a clear suppression process. The business should define which objections apply, where they are stored, which channels receive them and who records exceptions. A system status without a traceable link to the contacts actually sent may be too limited as the only record.

Call centres, agencies, address providers and software services also belong in the review. Preserve briefs, recipient lists, suppression files, versions, approvals and technical delivery logs. After a complaint, do not replace the historical record with a cleaned export without preserving the original.

The article on UWG cease and desist letters shows why originals, chronology and the precise claim direction should be preserved together. Whether a claim follows depends on the facts and evidence.

Anyone challenging a competitor contact series should not forward only one message. The original refusal, later contacts, numbers or senders, intervals and apparent advertising purpose are useful. A series from different systems may become visible only when the whole timeline is assembled.

Depending on the facts, injunction, removal and other claims may be relevant. The topic on injunctions and interim relief explains evidence, repetition risk and possible protective objectives. The appropriate response cannot be derived from the number of contacts alone.

Preserve the communications unchanged and describe the sequence factually. Public accusations or a blanket legal assessment cannot replace a review of the actual contacts, audience and any contractual exception.