Open Rights Group, a free speech and privacy campaign group, said that the “Nigel cut my bills” postcode lottery stunt was against data protection laws.
Mariano delli Santi, the organisation’s legal and policy officer, has called for an investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
He said: “Reform are asking the public to hand over sensitive data about their voting habits without being transparent about how it will be used.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (centre) is joined on stage by prospective Reform UK candidates for the Swindon wards in the upcoming local elections in May (Image: Jonathan Brady)
“This is a clear breach of transparency obligations under UK data protection law. Nothing in their privacy policy suggests they are not acting unlawfully in many other ways.
“Political opinions are among the most sensitive types of personal data, and voters must be able to engage in campaigns without feeling pressured to trade their privacy for the chance of material benefit. The ICO must investigate and take a stand against political parties exploiting data in this way.”
READ MORE: Reform UK insist 'Nigel cut my bills' stunt is legal as poll lead falters
Reform also risk “turning democratic participation into a data-harvesting exercise” by offering financial incentives to people in exchange for them revealing their political reviews, delli Santi said.
He added: “Free and fair elections depend on trust, transparency, and genuine consent not competitions that blur the line between campaigning and profiling.”
Open Rights Group said that the contest, which offers every household in one street in the UK the chance to have part of their energy bills met by the party, does not have its own specific privacy policy. It is instead covered by Reform’s general privacy policy, which the organisation said does not set out how people’s data will be used, only that the party will comply with the law.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage speaks at a Reform UK event in Basingstoke, Hampshire (Image: Ben Birchall)
The organisation said that the party had failed to comply with its transparency obligations because it did not set out a legal basis for processing data given, in this case their political opinions, through the prize draw.
Political opinions are classed as “special category” data under data protection laws.
Open Rights Group argued that entrants could feel they have to give consent to their names being published if they win because the question is asked before the prize is adjudicated, meaning people could feel they might be at a disadvantage if they decline.
The terms and conditions give the party full discretion in deciding the winner.
Reform and the ICO were approached for comment.
