Hindustan Unilever Limited says telecom companies must put safeguards in place for any AI systems they use to detect spam. In response to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) consultation paper reviewing spam regulations, HUL says AI globally has made mistakes when implemented for purposes identification. This suggests that telcos should subject any AI-based anti-spam systems they implement to thorough testing. Telecom operators must also ensure that these AI systems have safeguards to prevent bias or discrimination.

“Such measures become important if AI systems are to identify, detect and prevent spam, as any misidentification of spam would result in the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on bona fide senders of commercial communications,” HUL claims.

HUL said this in response to TRAI’s consultation paper on the Commercial Telecommunications Customer Preference Regulations (TCCPR), 2018. TRAI plans to update these regulations and ask telecom operators to take more proactive steps to detect suspected spammers.

Key points from HUL’s submission:

Don’t limit consent to just telecommunications companies:

TRAI must take into account that companies collect user consent for promotional communication on their websites, says Hindustan Unilever (HUL). In its consultation paper, TRAI suggests that companies should only send promotional calls/messages to users who have explicitly consented to it through the digital consent acquisition (DCA) system of telecom companies. “This would restrict the choice of consumers even when they have voluntarily given consent to receive promotional communications from a specific company by registering on the latter’s website,” HUL’s submission to TRAI said. He argues that TRAI should respect users’ choices and therefore not restrict consent to DCA installation.

No need to include an unsubscribe mechanism for transactional messages:

HUL mentions that today, several companies (including e-commerce platforms) authenticate customer accounts through OTPs. This prevents bad actors from illicitly accessing customer accounts, he explains. The company says TRAI should not ask companies to provide an opt-out mechanism for transactional messages.

He argues that transactional messages (like OTPs) are important for customers to securely access their accounts on online platforms and even to carry out banking transactions. If a customer ends up unsubscribing accidentally, they could lose access to the services. Additionally, users cannot re-register for 90 days. HUL suggests that TRAI should shorten the membership period to ensure that customers do not end up missing out on access to the service for an extended period.

HUL also discusses the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, which also requires companies to obtain consent from people before processing their data. He mentions that the law does not prevent companies from requesting consent through a specific method. As such, to avoid different regulatory frameworks creating confusion, TRAI should either harmonize its approach with the DPDP Act or consider leaving the management of consent entirely to the DPDP Act.

Telecom operators should not close customer complaints in three days:

Under the current complaint handling system, telecom companies can close their customers’ spam complaints if the user reports the spam call/message three days after the spammer contacts them. HUL believes that this deadline is far too short and urges the regulator to extend it to seven days. He mentions that a delay in reporting spam does not cause any harm, but it is possible that it will allow more customers to report spammers to their respective telecom operators.

Advertisements

Additional validation before acting on suspected spammers:

The consultation paper mentions that telcos should collect feedback from customers every time a suspected spammer (someone making more than 50 calls per day or sending more than 50 SMS messages) contacts them. Telecom operators must collect this feedback from at least 5% of customers receiving calls/messages from suspected spammers.

HUL highlights that unsolicited communications (spam) under the TCCCPR are not limited to just promotional calls and messages, but also commercial communications that businesses make after specific consent from customers. As such, it suggests that after collecting customer feedback, telcos should check whether businesses have contacted individuals who have opted out of receiving commercial messages/calls through the Do Not Disturb app ( DND) of TRAI.

Listen to companies before declaring them spammers:

Under the TCCCPR, telecom operators must create honeypots to attract spammers and collect information about them. In the consultation paper, TRAI suggests that telecom operators should treat companies contacting honeypots as spammers and report such spammers to the telecom provider providing services to the spammer. The spammer’s telephone company must then suspend outgoing services from that company and open an investigation into the company. HUL maintains that to uphold the natural principle of justice, telecom operators should provide businesses with an opportunity to be heard before suspending their outgoing services.

Also read: