Hot Ordered to Pay NIS 6,700 for Harassing Former Customer
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
A former Hot customer, Gideon Kishon, will receive NIS 6,700 after a court ruled the company harassed him with repeated calls after his service was canceled. The court found Hot's actions constituted "other harassment" under the Privacy Protection Law, awarding compensation for persistent unwanted contact. While Kishon's claim under the "Spam Law" was dismissed as it doesn't cover calls from human representatives, the Privacy Protection Law allowed for damages. Hot was ordered to pay the sum within 30 days.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Hot must pay former customer Gideon Kishon NIS 6,700 for repeated harassment after his service cancellation.
- A court ruled Hot's persistent calls constituted "other harassment" under the Privacy Protection Law.
- Kishon received calls despite requesting multiple times that they stop and his number be removed.
- The "Spam Law" claim was dismissed as it does not apply to calls from human representatives.
- The compensation was awarded under the Privacy Protection Law, not the Spam Law.
- Hot's defense that the number was blocked and Kishon hadn't contacted customer service was rejected.
A senior registrar at the Kfar Saba Magistrate's Court has ordered the telecommunications company Hot to pay NIS 6,700 to a former customer, Gideon Kishon, who was repeatedly contacted by the company after he canceled his service. Kishon had been a Hot subscriber for over 20 years before disconnecting. Despite his repeated requests in each call to stop contacting him and remove his number from their system, he continued to receive calls from different numbers.
Senior Registrar Reut Ziv ruled that these persistent calls constituted "other harassment" under the Privacy Protection Law. The total award includes NIS 6,000 in compensation, NIS 300 for transcribing calls, and NIS 400 in legal costs. Kishon had initially sought NIS 27,300, including NIS 7,000 under the "Spam Law" for seven documented calls, NIS 20,000 for invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and NIS 300 for transcription.
Kishon provided recordings and transcripts as evidence, which showed company representatives identifying themselves as Hot employees and referencing his past subscription. He argued that the calls, especially given his medical condition which makes him sensitive to stress, exacerbated his health issues. The calls ceased after he filed the lawsuit.
Hot had argued that Kishon's number was marked for blocking marketing calls in October 2023 and that no outgoing calls to him were registered in their systems. They claimed he needed to contact customer service to be removed from their database, a step he did not take. Hot also suggested the calls might have come from similarly named companies and that Hot Mobile was a separate legal entity. However, the registrar found Hot's explanations unconvincing, noting that the company itself had marked the number as blocked and that a prior business relationship did not grant unlimited permission for continued contact.
The court rejected Kishon's claim under the Spam Law, which prohibits unsolicited advertising via fax, auto-dialer, email, or SMS, but does not cover calls made by human representatives. The registrar relied on previous rulings stating that statutory compensation under this law cannot be claimed for such calls. The compensation awarded was based on the Privacy Protection Law, which allows up to NIS 50,000 in damages without proof of loss, though the registrar deemed NIS 6,000 appropriate given the circumstances, to avoid excessive enrichment.