Direct marketing

Is cold calling legal under POPIA?

The Regulator says live calls are electronic communication needing opt-in; practitioners dispute it, and a court test is brewing — here’s where it stands.

Published Last reviewed 7 min read

Written by

Martin Kotze

Attorney, Conveyancer & Notary Public

Quick answer
Contested — with the Regulator on the strict side. Automated marketing calls have always been opt-in under section 69. For live calls, the Information Regulator’s December 2024 Guidance Note states that telephone calling is electronic communication, which would put cold calling under the opt-in regime: consent, an existing-customer relationship, or one recorded consent request. Practitioners dispute the interpretation and a court test is anticipated — but the Guidance Note is the Regulator’s enforcement posture, and prudent marketers treat calls accordingly. Position as at June 2026.

The Regulator’s view: calls are electronic communication

Section 69(1) names “automatic calling machines, facsimile machines, SMSs or e-mail” — but the list is illustrative (“including”), and in its Guidance Note on Direct Marketing (3 December 2024) the Regulator took the step the telemarketing industry had long argued against:

Source — the actual words

“It is the view of the Regulator that telephone calling is electronic communication by virtue of telephone communications technology having become digital over time.”

Guidance Note on Direct Marketing in terms of POPIA (3 December 2024), para 7.1.1Read it on Information RegulatorPDF

On that reading, live telemarketing to strangers sits under the section 69 opt-in regime, not the opt-out regime — consent, customer relationship, or the once-off recorded consent ask.

The debate — and the coming court test

The Guidance Note is “advisory in nature” by its own terms, and practitioners have pushed back: a live human conversation, they argue, is not what the legislature meant by “electronic communication”, whose listed examples are all automated or written media — and definitions in other statutes cut both ways. The question will likely be settled in court: the Regulator has signalled it wants a judicial test of telemarketing under POPIA, and the matric-results litigation showed the courts are willing to reject the Regulator’s interpretations (see the enforcement tracker). Until a judgment lands, the practical reality stands: the Guidance Note is the enforcement posture of the body that issues enforcement notices. This page tracks the position and will be updated as it develops — last reviewed June 2026.

What prudent telemarketing looks like in 2026

  • Call your own customers within the s 69(3) legs — similar products, opt-out honoured on every call
  • For strangers: one call whose content is the consent request (s 69(2)), electronically recorded (regs 6.2–6.3) — pitch only after a yes
  • No purchased "opted-in" calling lists — consent must be to YOUR marketing, and opt-out lists are not consent (reg 6.4)
  • Identify the seller and offer a cease-contact route on every call (s 69(4))
  • Maintain the objection and withheld-consent registers the Guidance Note requires — and scrub against them before every campaign
  • Watch for the national opt-out registry flagged for 2025/26 — build suppression infrastructure now

Frequently asked questions

May I phone my existing customers with offers?

Yes — within the section 69(3) legs: details from a sale, your own similar products, opt-out honoured at collection and on every call. The phone-call controversy concerns strangers, not your own customers.

Are automated robocalls treated differently from live calls?

Automated calling machines are named in section 69(1) itself — they have been squarely opt-in since commencement. The live-call question is the contested one.

May I phone a stranger once to ask for consent?

On the Regulator’s reading, yes — that is the section 69(2) once-off ask applied to the phone: a call whose content is the consent request, electronically recorded as the amended Regulations require, with no pitch unless the answer is yes.

Where do I complain about spam calls?

To the seller’s own cease-contact channel first (s 69(4) requires one), then to the Information Regulator. The FT Rams matter shows complaints do move the Regulator to act.

Why you can trust this: Martin Kotze has been an admitted Attorney of the High Court of South Africa, registered Conveyancer, and Notary Public since 2014, practising from Pretoria. The firm is regulated by the Legal Practice Council under firm registration F17333.

This guide is general information, not legal advice for your specific matter.

Work with an attorney

Get POPIA right for your business

Martin Kotze advises on privacy and data protection — grounds mapping, privacy notices, operator agreements, marketing compliance and breach response. General guidance on this page is not a substitute for advice on your facts.