Unsolicited Calls From Real Estate Agents?
Why Developers and Realtors Must Own the Responsibility
Regulatory Status Notice – Rainger Realty Editorial Desk
This article discusses Indian laws, regulations and regulatory frameworks whose applicability may depend on their commencement date, subsequent amendments, government notifications and the specific facts of each case. References to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, TRAI regulations or other regulatory instruments should therefore be read subject to their actual operative status on the relevant date. This article is an independent research and analysis publication on unsolicited calls from real estate agents, and is not legal advice by Rainger Realty.
Real estate is a high-value, high-consideration industry.
A genuine customer may willingly provide a phone number:
- on a project website;
- through a property portal;
- through a contact form;
- at a property exhibition;
- during a site visit;
- through a broker;
- through a social media campaign.
That is legitimate lead generation and the discussions thereof mustn’t be tagged as unsolicited calls from real estate agents.
The problem begins when:
- data is scraped;
- numbers are purchased from unknown databases;
- a single enquiry is redistributed to multiple businesses;
- consent is assumed rather than verified;
- a consumer’s “Do Not Call” request is ignored;
- a third-party telemarketer makes calls on behalf of a developer;
- a broker cannot identify the source of the number;
- the real estate company claims it has no responsibility because “the vendor made the call.”
India’s telecom framework already prohibits unsolicited commercial communication through ordinary 10-digit numbers and provides consequences for repeated violations, including usage restrictions, disconnection and blacklisting in applicable cases. (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India)
The Digital Personal Data Protection framework also creates a broader data-governance context. The DPDP Act requires appropriate technical and organisational measures, places obligations on data fiduciaries, and provides for erasure of personal data when consent is withdrawn or the specified purpose is no longer being served, subject to legal retention requirements. (India Code)
Under the TRAI framework, unsolicited calls from real estate agents is considered to be communication that is neither based on the recipient’s consent nor aligned with the recipient’s registered preference. Real estate is specifically one of the categories that consumers can block through the National Customer Preference Register / DND system. (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India)
TRAI also identifies the relevant ecosystem as involving:
- Principal Entities / businesses;
- telemarketers and aggregators;
- telecom service providers;
- recipients. (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India)
The problem is therefore not simply that:
“Some salespeople make too many calls.”
The deeper problem is:
“A chain of commercial entities may benefit from a consumer’s personal data while responsibility becomes fragmented across the developer, agent, lead generator, database vendor and telemarketer.”
While the consumer experiences one unwanted call, the industry may respond:
- “We did not call.”
- “The agency called.”
- “The lead came from a vendor.”
- “The broker gave us the number.”
- “The customer had consented somewhere.”
- “We do not know where the database came from.”
This is the accountability gap in the multi-layered system. The real estate industry therefore needs a more practical accountability model.
“How Did You Get My Number?”
It is one of the most common questions asked during an unsolicited sales call.
The caller’s response is often familiar:
- “You had filled a form.”
- “You had shown interest in property.”
- “We received your number from a database.”
- “Our marketing partner shared your details.”
- “You must have registered somewhere.”
Sometimes, the consumer did provide the number voluntarily.
Sometimes, the consumer did not.
Sometimes, the consumer did provide it to one company and suddenly receives calls from five, ten or twenty others.
And sometimes:
“Nobody can explain exactly where the number came from.”
That is not merely an issue of inconvenience,
It is a serious data-governance and accountability problem.
THE REAL ESTATE LEAD-GENERATION CHAIN
A typical lead may travel through:
Consumer
↓
Website / Portal / Advertisement
↓
Lead Capture
↓
Lead Aggregator
↓
Data Vendor
↓
Marketing Agency
↓
Telemarketer
↓
Broker / Channel Partner
↓
Developer / Realtor
By the time the consumer receives the call:
“The original source of the data may have disappeared.”
This creates a serious problem.
While the customer asks:
“Who gave you my number?”
The tele-caller or the organization may not have a clue about the original source.
THE CORE ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTION
Who Should Be Responsible?
There are at least five possible actors:
1. The developer
The project owner or principal commercial beneficiary.
2. The realtor
The business marketing or selling the property.
3. The lead aggregator
The company that collects and distributes leads.
4. The telemarketer
The entity actually making calls.
5. The data vendor
The entity that may have sourced or sold the contact data.
The consumer should not be forced to investigate this entire chain.
The better principle is:
“The principal commercial beneficiary must be able to identify the complete chain.”
CURRENT REGULATORY POSITION IN INDIA
TRAI Recognises the Principal Entity
TRAI’s framework treats the business sending commercial communications as a Principal Entity / Sender, and separately recognises telemarketers and aggregators as participants in the communication ecosystem. Principal entities using telecom resources for commercial communication have regulatory obligations under TCCCPR. (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India)
This is important because it means the regulatory architecture does not view telemarketing as simply an unconnected individual salesperson making a call.
There is an identifiable commercial communication ecosystem.
Real Estate Is a Specific DND Category
Consumers can block all commercial communication or selectively block categories, including Real Estate, through the NCPR / DND system. (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India)
This creates a clear practical principle:
“A person who has opted out of real estate commercial communication should not be treated as an unrestricted marketing prospect.”
Commercial Calls from Ordinary 10-Digit Numbers Are a Major Compliance Risk
TRAI states that subscribers using ordinary 10-digit numbers for unsolicited commercial communication may be treated as unregistered telemarketers, with consequences including warnings, usage restrictions and, for repeated violations, disconnection and blacklisting. (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India)
TRAI’s 2025 framework also reinforced the use of designated number series and restrictions on ordinary 10-digit numbers for telemarketing, while distinguishing promotional and transactional/service communications. (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India)
Consent Is Not the Same as “The Number Was Available”
This distinction is fundamental.
A phone number being:
- publicly visible;
- present in a database;
- found on a website;
- previously supplied to another business;
- available through a broker;
does not automatically establish that the individual consented to receive every future real estate sales call.
TRAI defines consent as voluntary permission given by the customer to the sender for a specific purpose, while its framework also distinguishes registered preferences. (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India)
The DPDP Framework Strengthens the Data-Governance Argument
The DPDP Act establishes obligations around processing personal data, security safeguards and data erasure in circumstances including withdrawal of consent or the end of the specified purpose, subject to legal retention requirements. (India Code)
The 2025 Rules and explanatory material emphasise clear, standalone notices, understandable information about the data collected and the purpose of processing, and accessible mechanisms for withdrawal of consent and complaints. (MeitY)
This has a direct implication for real estate lead generation:
“We acquired a phone number” is not the same as “we can use the phone number indefinitely for every marketing purpose.”
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM: CONSENT THEATRE
Consent Is Often Treated as a Checkbox. It Should Be Treated as Evidence.
A real estate website may contain language such as:
“By submitting this form, I agree to receive calls, WhatsApp messages and communications from the company and its partners.”
The problem is the phrase:
“and its partners.”
- Who are the partners?
- How many are there?
- For how long may they contact the person?
- For what exact property?
- Can the consumer withdraw consent?
- What happens to the data after withdrawal?
- Can the data be resold?
These are the questions that a meaningful consent framework should answer.
WHAT WE RECOMMEND
Real Estate Consent & Call Accountability Framework
This is the flagship Rainger Realty Research Desk recommendation, that functions based on the following nine principles.
PRINCIPLE 1 — EVERY LEAD MUST HAVE A PROVENANCE RECORD
Every commercial lead should have a basic record showing:
- Date collected
- Time collected
- Source website/platform
- Campaign/source
- Consent language shown
- Purpose
- Company receiving data
- Partners authorized
- Consent status
- Withdrawal status
The industry should be able to answer – within Minutes, Not days, Not after an internal investigation:
“Where did this lead come from?”
PRINCIPLE 2 — “CONSENT” MUST BE SPECIFIC
A consumer should not be unknowingly consenting to an unlimited chain of companies.
Better:
“I agree to be contacted by XYZ Realty regarding Project ABC.”
Or:
“I agree to receive information about residential property opportunities in Thane District from XYZ Realty.”
The more distant the commercial entity is from the original consent, the weaker the accountability chain becomes.
PRINCIPLE 3 — THE LEAD MUST DISCLOSE ITS SOURCE
When a consumer asks:
“How did you get my number?”
The caller should be able to answer:
“You submitted your number on [specific platform] on [date] in connection with [specific purpose].”
This is a powerful reform.
PRINCIPLE 4 — THE COMMERCIAL BENEFICIARY MUST OWN THE CHAIN
If a developer appoints:
- a marketing agency;
- a lead aggregator;
- a telemarketing company;
- a channel partner;
the developer should not automatically escape responsibility for the marketing ecosystem used to promote its project.
The proposed principle:
“Delegation of marketing does not automatically eliminate accountability for the commercial beneficiary.”
This does not mean every developer should be automatically liable for every illegal act of every unrelated person.
The practical model should distinguish:
Direct responsibility: The company itself ordered or authorised the campaign.
Vicarious / chain responsibility: The company engaged a vendor or intermediary to generate the leads or calls.
Independent misconduct: A third party used a company’s brand without authorisation.
The last category requires a different treatment.
PRINCIPLE 5 — TELEMARKETERS MUST BE IDENTIFIABLE
Every commercial call should be traceable to:
Caller
↓
Telemarketing Entity
↓
Principal Entity
↓
Campaign
↓
Lead Source
The consumer should not receive a call from: “Rahul from property department.”
The caller should be able to identify:
- his/her name;
- the company;
- the principal business;
- the purpose of the call.
This is basic commercial transparency.
PRINCIPLE 6 — ONE CLEAR OPT-OUT SHOULD BE ENOUGH
A consumer should not have to say: “Do not call me.” – to five different people.
The first clear withdrawal should trigger:
OPT-OUT
↓
Central Suppression List
↓
All Internal CRMs
↓
All Active Campaigns
↓
All AuthoriZed Vendors
↓
All Channel Partners
The practical standard should be:
“One opt-out should travel faster than the original marketing lead.”
PRINCIPLE 7 — “DO NOT CALL AGAIN” SHOULD BE A HARD BLOCK
Once a consumer clearly says: “Do not call me again.” – the number should be placed on a suppression list.
It should not remain:
- in the active lead queue;
- in the call centre dialer;
- in a broker spreadsheet;
- in an old campaign list;
- in a vendor database.
PRINCIPLE 8 — EVERY LEAD SHOULD HAVE A DATA EXPIRY DATE
A major practical recommendation:
Lead Freshness / Purpose Limitation
A lead collected for:
“Project ABC enquiry”
should not automatically become:
“Permanent permission to market every property forever.”
The industry should define:
- campaign duration;
- purpose;
- retention period;
- re-consent requirement.
This is particularly important because real estate sales cycles can be long. A lead can remain commercially relevant. But that does not necessarily mean the consent is indefinite.
PRINCIPLE 9 — LEAD VENDORS MUST PROVIDE A CONSENT CERTIFICATE
Every lead vendor should provide:
Lead ID
Unique identifier.
Source
Website, campaign, portal, exhibition, etc.
Timestamp
When the lead was collected.
Consent Record
The exact consent wording or a reliable record of the consent mechanism.
Purpose
What the consumer was requesting.
Recipient
Which company was authorised to receive the lead.
Sharing History
Whether the lead was shared further.
Withdrawal Status
Whether the consumer later opted out.
This would dramatically reduce: “We bought the database from someone else” – as an accountability defense.
THE PROPOSED “LEAD PASSPORT”
Every lead should have a digital Lead Passport.
Example:
LEAD ID: RR-2026-000123
Collected: 24 July 2026
Source: Project ABC Website
Purpose: Request for 2BHK information
Consent: Yes
Original Recipient: XYZ Developer
Authorised Sharing: No
Opt-Out: No
Status: Active
If shared with a broker / agent / marketing company:
Shared With: ABC Realty
Date Shared: 25 July 2026
Purpose: Follow-up on Project ABC
Authority: Developer-approved
If the consumer opts out:
Status: SUPPRESSED
Date: dd/mm/yyyy
This is technologically achievable using existing CRM and lead-management systems.
THE PROPOSED “CALL ACCOUNTABILITY ID”
Every commercial campaign should have an internal ID.
Example:
Campaign: NMIA-2026-JULY
Principal Entity: XYZ Developer
Marketing Agency: ABC Marketing
Telemarketer: CallCo Pvt Ltd
Lead Source: Google Lead Form
Consent Type: Project-specific
If a consumer complains, the business should be able to reconstruct the chain.
A THREE-STRIKE SYSTEM FOR THE INDUSTRY
The proposed model:
Strike 1 — Warning and Corrective Action
- identify the source;
- suppress the number;
- audit the campaign;
- notify the vendor.
Strike 2 — Financial Consequence
- vendor penalty;
- campaign suspension;
- mandatory compliance review.
Strike 3 — Serious Repeated Violation
- termination of vendor;
- regulatory reporting where applicable;
- public disclosure of serious misconduct;
- possible consequences for the principal commercial beneficiary under applicable law.
This should be calibrated to:
- severity;
- scale;
- intent;
- repeated conduct;
- data provenance.
THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY NEEDS A “KNOW YOUR LEAD” SYSTEM
The financial sector has a system: KYC (Know Your Customer)
Similarly, the real estate marketing industry needs: KYL (Know Your Lead)
Before a lead is called, the business should know:
- where the number came from;
- what the customer requested;
- when consent was given;
- what the customer agreed to;
- whether consent was withdrawn;
- whether the number is suppressed.
THE “NO UNKNOWN DATABASE” PRINCIPLE
A professional real estate company should adopt this internal rule:
“No lead may be called unless the company can identify its source and lawful basis for contact.”
This would immediately eliminate a large part of the grey market in:
- purchased databases;
- scraped numbers;
- recycled lead lists;
- unverified broker spreadsheets.
THE CONSUMER'S PRACTICAL RIGHTS
A person receiving an unsolicited real estate call should be able to ask:
Question 1: Who are you?
Question 2: Which company are you calling for?
Question 3: How did you obtain my number?
Question 4: What property or service is this call about?
Question 5: What is the process to stop further calls?
A legitimate business should be able to answer all five.
WHAT ACTIONS CONSUMERS CAN TAKE TODAY
TRAI provides mechanisms for registering preferences and reporting UCC through 1909 and the DND system. Consumers can also register preferences specifically against real estate communications. (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India)
Her is a simple checklist:
Step 1
Record the number.
Step 2
Record the date and time.
Step 3
Ask:
“How did you get my number?”
Step 4
Ask for:
- caller identity;
- company name;
- project name.
Step 5
Clearly say:
“I do not consent to further marketing calls.”
Step 6
Use the appropriate DND / 1909 complaint channel where applicable.
Step 7
Keep evidence of repeated calls.
THE ROLE OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS
A responsible developer should implement:
Vendor Due Diligence
Before appointing a telemarketer:
- verify registration;
- verify business identity;
- verify lead source;
- review compliance history.
Contractual Controls
Every marketing contract should include:
- no purchased databases without provenance;
- no scraping;
- no illegal calling;
- DND compliance;
- opt-out obligations;
- audit rights;
- indemnity;
- immediate termination for serious violations.
Internal Suppression List
The developer should maintain a central list.
Periodic Audits
Randomly test:
- where leads came from;
- whether consent exists;
- whether opt-outs were respected.
THE ROLE OF REALTORS
Realtors and channel partners should not treat: “A broker gave me the number” – as a complete compliance system.
They should know:
- who collected the lead;
- when;
- for what purpose;
- whether the customer consented to third-party contact.
A professional realtor should be able to say:
“We received your inquiry through [source] regarding [specific requirement].”
THE ROLE OF TELEMARKETERS
Telemarketers are not merely:
“The people who make the calls.”
They are part of the commercial communication chain.
They should maintain:
- principal entity records;
- campaign records;
- call logs;
- suppression lists;
- complaint records;
- lead-source records.
They should never be permitted to say: “We do not know who the client is.” – while making a call promoting that client’s property.
THE ROLE OF LEAD AGGREGATORS
Lead aggregators are potentially the most important link.
They should not simply sell:
“10,000 property leads.”
They should provide:
“10,000 traceable, purpose-specific, consent-documented leads.”
Every lead should have:
- source;
- timestamp;
- consent record;
- purpose;
- authorised recipient;
- sharing restrictions.
THE PROPOSED “REAL ESTATE LEAD QUALITY SCORE”
Every lead could receive a score:
Grade A
- direct enquiry;
- verified consent;
- specific project;
- recent;
- no opt-out.
Grade B
- category-level interest;
- verified source;
- limited sharing.
Grade C
- old lead;
- uncertain purpose;
- indirect source.
Grade D
- unknown source;
- purchased database;
- no consent record.
Professional companies should:
“Never call Grade D leads.”
THE BUSINESS CASE FOR RESPONSIBLE MARKETING
This is not only about compliance.
Unsolicited calls damage: Brand Reputation
The harassed consumer remembers: “That company keeps calling me as They Do Not have Business”
Damages caused by Unsolicited Calls:
Conversion Quality: Unsolicited leads often have lower intent.
Sales Productivity: Salespeople waste time calling uninterested people.
Trust: High-value real estate transactions require trust.
Data Quality: A smaller number of verified leads may be more valuable than a massive unverified database.
The future of real estate marketing should therefore be:
“Fewer leads. Better consent. Better qualification. Better conversion.”
THE RAINGER REALTY RESEARCH DESK PROPOSAL
The Responsible Real Estate Communication Standard (RRCS)
This should be the voluntary minimum industry standard in Real Estate.
RRCS-1:
No unidentified data source.
RRCS-2
No commercial calling without a documented basis.
RRCS-3
No resale of data without transparent authority.
RRCS-4
Immediate suppression after opt-out.
RRCS-5
Every caller identifies the principal commercial entity.
RRCS-6
Every lead has a traceable source.
RRCS-7
Every vendor is contractually accountable.
RRCS-8
Every complaint is logged.
RRCS-9
Repeated violations trigger vendor suspension.
RRCS-10
The commercial beneficiary cannot simply say: “The agency did it.”
THE BALANCED POSITION
Let’s make it clear that: Not every sales call is illegal.
A person who:
- requests a brochure;
- submits an enquiry;
- asks for a callback;
- registers for a site visit;
may reasonably expect a follow-up.
The issue is not genuine customer service, but:
“Unsolicited, repeated, unexplained commercial contact.”
The objective should not be to eliminate:
- real estate sales;
- legitimate follow-up;
- broker communication;
- customer service.
The objective is to eliminate:
- mystery databases;
- endless resale of personal data;
- untraceable calling chains;
- repeated calls after opt-out;
- corporate evasion.
THE BIGGER FUTURE:
CONSENT-CENTRIC REAL ESTATE MARKETING
The real estate industry should move:
From:
Buy Database
↓
Call Everyone
↓
Find Buyer
To:
Earn Attention
↓
Obtain Meaningful Consent
↓
Understand Requirement
↓
Provide Relevant Information
↓
Follow Up Responsibly
↓
Respect Opt-Out
This is not merely more ethical, It may also be more commercially efficient.
THE CONCLUSION
(Rainger Realty Editorial Desk)
India’s unsolicited call problem cannot be solved by telling consumers: “Just block the number.”
Blocking the number only treats the symptom.
The deeper question is: Who gave the number to the caller?
And then: Who benefited from the call?
A functioning accountability system must connect those two answers.
The real estate industry should move toward a simple principle:
“If a company benefits from a commercial lead, it should be able to explain the origin of that lead and demonstrate the basis on which the consumer was contacted.”
The telemarketer may make the call. -> The lead vendor may supply the number. -> The broker may conduct the conversation.
But the consumer should not be left in a maze of: “It was someone else.”
The future of real estate marketing should be:
Traceable. Consent-Based. Purpose-Specific. Auditable. Respectful.
Regulatory and Legal Disclaimer - Rainger Realty Editorial Desk
This article is published for general informational, educational and research purposes only. It is intended to present an independent analysis of unsolicited commercial communications, real estate telemarketing, data-protection practices and related regulatory developments in India. It does not constitute legal advice, regulatory advice, professional advice or a definitive statement of the current legal position applicable to any particular person, company, transaction, communication or set of facts. The regulatory framework governing unsolicited commercial communication, telemarketing, consent, personal-data processing and related matters may be amended, supplemented, interpreted or brought into force in phases by the competent authorities. In particular, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 contain provisions whose commencement and operational applicability may occur in accordance with applicable government notifications and prescribed timelines. Accordingly, references in this article to any legislation, rules, regulations, directions, frameworks, regulatory requirements or compliance obligations should be read subject to their actual legal status and operative applicability on the date of the relevant conduct or communication. Readers should not rely solely on this article to determine whether a particular call, message, data-processing activity, marketing practice or business arrangement is lawful or unlawful. The legal position may depend on the specific facts, the identity and role of the parties involved, the applicable regulatory framework, the date on which the relevant conduct occurred and the provisions that were legally in force at that time. Rainger Realty, Rainger Realty Research & Insights (RRIC), Rainger Ventures Private Limited and their respective representatives do not provide any warranty that the information contained in this article is complete, current or applicable to every situation, and shall not be responsible for any action taken or omitted to be taken solely on the basis of this article. Readers, businesses and consumers should independently verify the current position from official sources and, where appropriate, obtain advice from a qualified legal or regulatory professional before taking action. Where this article presents proposed frameworks, standards, recommendations or solutions—including the proposed Real Estate Consent & Call Accountability Framework (RCCAF™) and Responsible Real Estate Communication Standard (RRCS)—these are conceptual research and policy recommendations of Rainger Realty Research & Insights and should not be understood as existing statutory requirements, officially recognised regulatory frameworks or legally binding standards unless expressly stated otherwise. The applicable legal and regulatory position should always be verified as on the relevant date.
Know Your Publisher
Rainger Realty Research Desk
Who we are
Get Alert on New Arrivals
How Clients View Us
Other Divisions
