Europe regulates telemarketing in different ways. What can be learnt?
Across Europe, policymakers are asking the same question: how can consumers be protected from unwanted or harmful telemarketing practices? The answers, however, differ from one country to another. France has just moved from an opt-out model to a general opt-in model,(1) Sweden is examining a possible ban, (2) while Finland successfully continues to permit telemarketing subject to consumer opt-out rights (3). The different approaches raise an important question: if consumer protection is the objective, what evidence demonstrates that one telemarketing model delivers better outcomes than another?
As European countries pursue different policy approaches to telemarketing regulation, FEDMA published a report, “Regulating Telemarketing in the EU: An Evidence Based and Comparative Analysis with a Focus on Opt-In and Opt-Out Frameworks” (June 2026). This report seeks to improve understanding of the models currently in place and the factors that may shape their effectiveness. It also identifies areas where further research may be warranted. This report finds:
Finding 1. Telemarketing debates often become centred on the privacy-based choice between opt-in and opt-out, overshadowing broader consumer-protection considerations. Yet the report found no robust evidence that opt-in, in itself, provides a higher level of consumer protection than opt-out, or vice versa. As opt-in and opt-out rules primarily regulate whether companies may contact individuals, any consumer-protection benefit of opt-in depends on whether requiring prior consent actually reduces consumers’ exposure to unwanted or harmful calls in practice. Where this does not occur, and where opt-out mechanisms operate effectively, a shift to opt-in is unlikely to improve consumer protection and may even create a misplaced perception that calls received are more likely to be legitimate.
Finding 2. Consent does not always work in the way consumers might expect. In many opt-in systems, consent is not obtained directly by the company that ultimately makes the call, but is collected, shared and relied upon through a broader ecosystem of intermediaries. This can make it more difficult for consumers to understand who may contact them and why.
Finding 3. The effectiveness of telemarketing regulation appears to depend not only on the regulatory model chosen, but also on the national context in which it operates. Factors such as consumer awareness, demographic characteristics, language diversity, enforcement practices and the visibility of consumer-protection mechanisms may influence how consumers experience both opt-in and opt-out systems. As a result, the relative benefits of different approaches may vary across Member States.
Finding 4. The next telemarketing debate may not be opt-in versus opt-out, but human versus AI-driven telemarketing.
These findings suggest that the effectiveness of telemarketing regulation cannot be assessed solely through the lens of opt-in versus opt-out models. Consumer protection levels may also depend on how rules are implemented and enforced, how consumers interact with consent and objection mechanisms in practice, and how technological developments reshape the telemarketing sector. The report therefore argues for a broader and more evidence-based policy process to effectively find out how high levels of consumer protection objectives can best be achieved for telemarketing in different national contexts.
