MAIN IMAGE: Jan le Roux – CE of Rebosa
Editor
Last month, we reported that the NCC had confirmed its 1 October 2026 deadline for marketing compliance.
Rebosa has since obtained a legal opinion and has shared its objection to the new direct marketing regulations under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), writing formally to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and the National Consumer Commission (NCC) to argue that key parts of the regulations are unlawful and should be withdrawn.
The core argument
Rebosa’s case rests on a distinction it says the regulations have got wrong. Section 11(6) of the CPA allows the Minister to make regulations for the operation of the consumer opt-out registry, the list consumers use to block unwanted direct marketing. Rebosa argues this is not the same as the power to create a compulsory registration and licensing scheme for direct marketers themselves, complete with registration fees, annual renewals, and monthly data-cleansing charges.
“The registry Parliament had in mind is a consumer opt-out registry, not a register of direct marketers,” said Jan le Roux, CE of Rebosa. “The power to regulate how that registry operates doesn’t stretch to building an entire licensing system on top of it, with fees attached at every stage. That’s a different kind of regulatory scheme, and it isn’t one the Act authorises.”
Rebosa also disputes that the fees can be justified as “filing fees” under the Act’s general regulation-making power. “A filing fee is what you pay to lodge a document. An annual renewal fee to stay on a registry isn’t that; it’s a licence fee in substance, and no provision in the Act allows the Minister to impose one,” said le Roux.
The consent problem
The letter also raises what Rebosa calls a granularity problem. The CPA allows consumers to block direct marketing “either generally or for specific purposes”, but the regulations only allow for a blanket opt-out. There is no way for a consumer to block marketing from unknown businesses while still hearing from a practitioner they already have a relationship with.
“A consumer who wants to keep hearing from an agent they trust, while blocking everyone else, has no way to do that under this system,” said le Roux. “The only option is to opt out of everything or nothing. That’s not what the Act asked for, and it sits awkwardly against POPIA, where consent can be given to one business and withheld from another.”
Cost and transformation concerns
Rebosa is also pressing the cost impact on smaller practitioners. Based on the NCC’s own confirmation that no fee relief or scaled pricing is being considered, the letter calculates that an agency cleansing a database of 5,000 entries monthly would face monthly compliance costs rising from roughly R9,130 in 2026 to over R10,600 by 2029.
“These fees escalate every year with no ceiling, and there’s no relief for smaller operators,” said le Roux. “That runs directly against what the Property Practitioners Act is trying to achieve on transformation, which is lowering the barriers to entry for historically disadvantaged practitioners and SMMEs, not raising them.”
Rebosa’s letter further contends that the fee amounts set for 2027 to 2029 were never published for public comment, which it says makes them procedurally invalid as well.
What happens next
Rebosa has asked the Minister to withdraw the impugned regulations, or amend them to remove the provisions it considers unlawful, and to engage with the industry on lawful alternatives. It has requested a substantive response within ten days.
“We’ve asked for a response within ten days because time is genuinely short,” said le Roux. “Enforcement starts on 1 October, and our members shouldn’t have to build compliance systems around rules that we believe won’t survive legal scrutiny. We’d much rather resolve this through engagement, but we’ve reserved our right to go to court if that doesn’t happen.”
Property Professional will continue to follow developments as the Minister and NCC respond.
