UAE Telemarketing Fines: The Complete Penalty Table (Cabinet Resolution 57/2024)

How were these figures verified?

Figures verified against the official PDFs on 27 July 2026. Every violation, legal reference, and AED figure on this page is transcribed directly from the Ministry of Economy's own bilingual PDF of Cabinet Resolution No. 57 of 2024 (Administrative Violations and Penalties), hosted on moet.gov.ae, then independently re-verified cell by cell against that same document. All 18 rows of the company penalty table, every legal reference, and every AED figure were checked twice, with zero discrepancies between the two passes.

Several summaries of this table that circulate online are imprecise in ways that matter if you are pricing a specific risk. Some merge two distinct violations into a single row and quote only one penalty figure for both. Others state only the first and third penalty tier for a violation and omit the middle escalation step, which understates what a second offence actually costs. The table below is transcribed from the primary legal text itself, not from a secondary summary.

What are the fines for UAE telemarketing violations?

Cabinet Resolution 57 of 2024 sets out, in its Table No. (1), the fine for each of 18 distinct violations a company can commit under the telemarketing rules in Cabinet Resolution 56 of 2024. Every violation carries three tiers: the fine for a first offence, a second offence, and a third offence. The legal reference column points to the specific article of Resolution 56 the violation breaches.

Three violations top out at AED 150,000 by the third offence: operating without prior approval (Row 1), calling a number listed on the DNCR (Row 4), and disclosing or trading consumer data without consent (Row 18). These sit well above the AED 30,000 to 50,000 band that covers most of the procedural violations in the table. The automated-systems violation, Row 16, sits inside that ordinary mid-tier band: the law does not price non-compliant AI-driven calling any higher than non-compliant human calling, and it does not offer it any discount either.

What is the penalty for individuals, not companies?

Resolution 57's Table No. 2 covers a narrower case: a natural person, not a company, making marketing phone calls for their own products or services using a phone number licensed in their own name (Resolution 56, Article 3(2)). Only one violation type exists in this table, but its ancillary penalty, cutting the individual's phone service, is more severe in kind than anything attached to a company fine.

The cash fine for a third individual offence, AED 50,000, is lower than several company-table tiers. The ancillary penalty is the part that bites: a 12-month block from telecom services removes the phone number itself, not just its cost of doing business.

How does the penalty ladder escalate?

The AED figures above are only one part of the enforcement mechanism. Article 3 (First, Clause 1) of Resolution 57 gives the competent authority a four-stage ladder, and a serious first violation does not have to start at the bottom.

1. Warning. The authority may issue a warning as its first response to a violation.
2. Fine. The AED figures set out in Table 1 or Table 2 above.
3. Suspension. "Total or partial suspension of activity for a period not less than (7) seven days and not exceeding (90) ninety days."
4. Cancellation. "Cancellation of license and deletion from the commercial register, cutting communications services and removing the phone number."

The ladder is not a fixed sequence a company works through one step at a time. Under Article 3 (First, Clause 3), the authority may skip straight to the harshest applicable penalty if the same violation recurs "within (6) six months from the date of imposing the [previous] administrative penalty." A second DNCR violation inside that six-month window does not necessarily mean a second warning or the next fine tier; it can mean suspension or cancellation immediately.

Article 6 sets out the appeal route: a company has 15 days from notice of a penalty to appeal, in writing or electronically. The authority then has 30 days to decide. The text is explicit that "receiving no reply during the above period shall be deemed a rejection": silence favours the regulator, not the company.

Article 4 gives the Cabinet the power to amend the Table 1 figures, on a proposal from the Minister of Economy in coordination with the Ministry of Finance. As of 27 July 2026, no such amendment has been made. The figures in the table above are the original 2024 figures, still in force.

Are these fines actually enforced?

A penalty table only matters if it is used. Khaleej Times reported that UAE authorities had imposed a total of Dh3,800,000 in fines on violating telemarketers, and in a separate report, that 159 companies had each been fined Dh50,000 for telemarketing violations. Both figures are cited via Khaleej Times' own reporting, linked below.

How does MAJ Leads build these controls in?

Every fine on this page traces back to an operational control: prior approval, DNCR screening, calling hours, recording with notice, consent before pitching, and call-back limits. MAJ Leads builds each of these into AI receptionist and outbound deployments by default, rather than leaving them to be configured correctly after go-live. For inbound-heavy use cases like AI appointment booking, most of Table 1 does not apply at all, since those calls are not telemarketing in the first place, but the recording-notice and data-handling controls still do. See the full range of AI voice agent services we deploy under this framework.

For the article-by-article rules these fines attach to, see our complete Cabinet Resolution 56 and 57 reference. For the operational checklist version, see the TDRA compliance checklist.