Complaints about automated nuisance calls have reached their highest level in five years, according to new figures from the Information Commissioner’s Office, prompting investigations into potentially unlawful marketing and fraudulent activity.
The regulator received 3,684 complaints in September 2026, compared with 2,178 in August and 1,374 in July. That represents an increase of 58% between July and August, followed by a further 69% rise in September.
The totals record complaints submitted by members of the public, not individual calls independently confirmed as unlawful. The ICO believes the number of automated calls actually made is substantially higher because many recipients end unwanted calls without reporting them.
The regulator published the figures on 9 October, warning about automated and AI-enabled marketing techniques alongside calls associated with attempts to persuade people to share personal details, join messaging groups or engage with fraudulent schemes.
The increase does not establish that AI generated every complained-about call. Automated marketing existed before modern voice AI, and the figures do not provide a separate breakdown of incidents involving synthetic speech or other particular technologies.
Telephone automation can serve legitimate purposes, including certain customer service notifications and communications requested by customers. UK marketing law distinguishes those activities from calls made to promote products or services without appropriate permission.
Under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations, automated marketing calls made through recorded messages generally require specific prior consent from the person or business being called. General consent to marketing or to a live telephone call is insufficient for that purpose.
The ICO’s guidance also requires automated marketing callers to identify themselves, display an appropriate telephone number and provide contact details. Businesses commissioning calls need to establish how consent was obtained and whether their systems honour withdrawals.
Live marketing calls are governed by a different set of rules, including restrictions relating to the Telephone Preference Service and Corporate Telephone Preference Service. An organisation cannot assume that compliance procedures developed for human callers will cover automated activity.
New technology can complicate that distinction. AI-enabled voice systems may sound conversational, follow branching scripts or respond to some answers, making it less obvious to recipients that software is involved. The legal requirements depend on the nature of the communication and its operation, not merely on whether its speech appears natural.
Businesses using external marketing agencies also face oversight questions. A supplier may provide the calling platform or source contact data, but a company still needs to understand the permissions and procedures supporting campaigns carried out on its behalf.
Record-keeping is essential when a complaint arises. Call lists, evidence of consent, campaign instructions, numbers used and records of objections can help an organisation investigate what happened and assist the regulator in identifying patterns.
The ICO has several live investigations into nuisance and scam-related calling activity. The existence of an investigation does not establish that a particular organisation has breached the law, and the regulator has not attributed the September increase to a single named operator.
Past enforcement demonstrates the financial consequences when unlawful marketing is established. Since April 2025, the ICO has issued 15 monetary penalty notices for nuisance calls and spam texts, totalling £2.37m. That combined figure should not be treated as fines for automated calls alone.
In September 2025, the regulator fined Home Improvement Marketing Ltd £300,000 and Green Spark Energy Ltd £250,000 for unlawful automated marketing calls. The cases involved software that could make recipients believe they were interacting with ordinary human callers.
Those penalties relate to completed enforcement action and are distinct from complaints received this summer. The comparison illustrates how the ICO uses evidence from investigations rather than complaint counts alone when imposing sanctions.
Andy Curry, the ICO’s head of investigations, has urged people receiving suspicious automated calls to report them. The regulator says even reports about calls that recipients quickly terminate can help connect activity across numbers and campaigns.
For organisations investing in automated customer contact, the rise in complaints puts greater emphasis on appropriate permissions, transparent identification and supervision of marketing partners. Improved technology does not remove the responsibility to comply with established rules.
The latest figures establish a rapid increase in reported nuisance-call activity, while the regulator’s investigations will determine which cases warrant enforcement. Until then, complaints, suspected scams and proven breaches must remain separate measures.
You must be logged in to post a comment.