Wireless Information Network Ltd, High Wycombe

WAP pay-per-page

Blue Stream Mobile Limited, Bucks

Standard

Case reference 814753

Summary

PhonepayPlus received 67 complaints between March 2009 and December 2009 in relation the services operating on shortcodes 89069 and 88011. The services were WAP pay-per-page services operated by Blue Stream Mobile Limited (the Information Provider) and promoted by way of promotional WAP links sent directly to consumers’ mobile phones. Examples of promotional WAP links as provided by the Information Provider were as follows: “PARIS DOWN N DIRTY!”; “DIRTY MOVIE ARCHIVE!”; “HUNKS IN UNIFORM!”; “Phwoar!”; “OLSEN twins SHOCK VID” and “FREE TOP MOBILE GAME”.

All of the above promotional text message examples contained a link (consistently reported as http://wap.mobile365.nettadulcsdefault.wnl). If consumers chose to ‘push’ the links received, they were taken to a WAP landing page where they could choose to browse and download pictures and videos of an adult nature. Upon leaving the site, their viewing charges were sent to their phones by reverse-billed text message from the service shortcodes.

PhonepayPlus established that pages which were clicked and viewed varied in price between £3 and £6 and each page contained multiple items/thumbnails of material (some of which were videos). The cost of viewing a page was applied to the consumer whether or not they had chosen to view the content by clicking on any of the thumbnails within that page. As such, the consumer was charged the same amount for simply browsing a page, regardless of whether the consumer decided to view the content.

Consumers stated that the service pricing had not been clear and, as such, they felt misled by the service mechanics (i.e. being charged large sums for just browsing the sites without always downloading content).

The Executive was of the opinion that the services may have contravened the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11th Edition Amended April 2008) (‘the Code’), and raised the following potential breach under the Code of Practice:

• Paragraph 5.4.1a  -   Fairness (Misleading)

The Tribunal upheld the breach raised. The revenue generated by the service fell within the mid range of Band 4 (£50,000-£100,000). The Tribunal considered the breaches to be moderate, issued a Formal Reprimand and imposed a fine of £7,500. The Tribunal ordered that the Information Provider remedy the breach by seeking compliance advice in relation to this service and its promotion within two weeks of the date of publication of this adjudication, such advice to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Executive within two weeks of receipt.

Administrative Costs awarded: 100%

Service Provider 

MX Telecom Limited, London

Information Provider 

Service Title and Type

WAP pay-per-page

Breaches upheld against

Blue Stream Mobile Limited, Bucks

Procedure

Standard

Case reference 814721

Summary 

PhonepayPlus received 359 complaints between March 2009 and December 2009 in relation the services operating on numerous shortcodes. The services were WAP pay-per-page services operated by Blue Stream Mobile Limited (the Information Provider) and promoted by way of promotional WAP links sent directly to consumers’ mobile phones. Examples of promotional WAP links as provided by the Information Provider were as follows: “12p Sex Vids”; “Download Lady Gaga Sex Video!” and “Cheryl Cole XXX Pics”.

PhonepayPlus established that pages that were clicked and viewed varied in price between £3 and £6 and each page contained multiple items/thumbnails of material. The cost of viewing a page was applied to the consumer whether or not they had chosen to view any of the available thumbnails within that page. As such, the consumer was charged the same amount for simply browsing a page, regardless of whether the consumer decided to view the content.

Consumers stated that the service pricing had not been clear and, as such, they felt misled by the service mechanics (i.e. being charged large sums for just browsing the sites without always downloading content).

The Executive was also concerned that consumers stated to have received WAP-push messages, the content of which suggested that they had been sent by users of the social network site ‘Facebook’.

The Executive was of the opinion that the services may have contravened the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11^th Edition Amended April 2008) (‘the Code’), and raised the following potential breach under the Code of Practice:

• Paragraph 5.4.1a  -   Fairness (Misleading)

Administrative Costs awarded: 100%

Associated Individual 

Jaipal Singh

Sanctions upheld against 

Procedure 

Paragraph 8.9.4

Sanctions 

The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Jaipal Singh from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of any premium rate service for a period of two years, under paragraph 8.9.2g of the Code. 

Case reference 805602

Summary 

PhonepayPlus had evidence suggesting that Mr Jaipal Singh was involved in a number of companies which had been subject to adjudication where the Tribunal had upheld a serious breach, or series of breaches, of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11^th Edition Amended April 2008) (‘the Code’).

The Tribunal considered a report prepared by the Executive in accordance with paragraph 8.9.4 of the Code and was minded to name Mr Jaipal Singh as an associated individual. The Executive notified Mr Jaipal Singh of the procedure by way of letter dated 7 January 2010, confirming the commencement of the naming procedure under the Code of Practice:

• Paragraph 8.9.2 f and g  -  Knowing involvement in a serious breach, or series of breaches, of the Code

The Tribunal considered the evidence and found that Mr Jaipal Singh was an associated individual, who had been knowingly involved in a series of breaches of the Code, in respect of the following matters: JJ Trading Limited (Case reference 712724) and Airwaves Telecom Limited (Case ref. 710286, 266343, 62029, 590060). The Tribunal did not consider that there was sufficient evidence to find that Mr Jaipal Singh had been knowingly involved in the breaches of the Code by Speedreview Limited (Case ref. 765871), Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions (Case ref. 774947), Symtek Communications Limited (Case ref. 751193), Enbel Limited (Case ref. 767427) and PCB Telecom Limited (Case ref. 766056).

The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Jaipal Singh from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of any premium rate service for a period of two years, under paragraph 8.9.2g of the Code.

Associated Individual 

Parvinder Singh

Sanctions upheld against 

Procedure 

Paragraph 8.9.4

Sanctions 

The Tribunal imposed no sanction.

Case reference 805605

Summary 

PhonepayPlus had evidence suggesting that Mr Parvinder Singh was involved in a company which had been subject to adjudication in relation to a serious breach, or series of breaches, of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11^th Edition Amended April 2008) (‘the Code’).

The Tribunal considered a report prepared by the Executive in accordance with paragraph 8.9.4 of the Code and was minded to name Mr Parvinder Singh as an associated individual. The Executive notified Mr Parvinder Singh of the procedure by way of letter dated 7 January 2010, confirming the commencement of the naming procedure under the Code of Practice:

• Paragraph 8.9.2 f and g  -  Knowing involvement in a serious breach, or series of breaches, of the Code

The Tribunal considered the evidence and concluded there was insufficient evidence to find that Mr Parvinder Singh had been knowingly involved in the breaches of the Code by Enbel Limited (Case ref. 767427).

The Tribunal imposed no sanction.

Associated Individual 

Khushbinder Singh Abhol

Sanctions upheld against 

Procedure 

Paragraph 8.9.4

Sanctions 

The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Khushbinder Singh Abhol from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of any premium rate service for a period of five years, under paragraph 8.9.2g of the Code. 

Case reference 805603

Summary 

PhonepayPlus had evidence suggesting that Mr Khushbinder Singh Abhol was involved in a number of companies which had been subject to adjudication in relation to a serious breach, or series of breaches, of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11^th Edition Amended April 2008) (‘the Code’).

The Tribunal considered a report prepared by the Executive in accordance with paragraph 8.9.4 of the Code and was minded to name Mr Khushbinder Singh Abhol as an associated individual. The Executive notified Mr Khushbinder Singh Abhol of the procedure by way of letter dated 7 January 2010, confirming the commencement of the naming procedure under the Code of Practice:

• Paragraph 8.9.2 f and g  -   Knowing involvement in a serious breach, or series of breaches, of the Code

The Tribunal considered the evidence and found that Mr Khushbinder Singh Abhol was an associated individual, who had been knowingly involved in a series of breaches of the Code, in respect of the following matters: Symtek Communications Limited (Case ref. 751193) and PCB Telecom Limited (Case ref. 766056).

The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Khushbinder Singh Abhol from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of any premium rate service for a period of five years, under paragraph 8.9.2g of the Code. 

Associated Individual 

Ranbir Singh Kaloya

Sanctions upheld against 

Procedure 

Paragraph 8.9.4

Sanctions 

The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Ranbir Singh Kaloya from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of any premium rate service for a period of five years, under paragraph 8.9.2g of the Code. 

Case reference 821927

Summary 

PhonepayPlus had evidence suggesting that Mr Ranbir Singh Kaloya was involved in a number of companies which had been subject to adjudication in relation to a serious breach, or series of breaches, of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11^th Edition Amended April 2008) (‘the Code’).

The Tribunal considered a report prepared by the Executive in accordance with paragraph 8.9.4 of the Code and was minded to name Mr Ranbir Singh Kaloya as an associated individual. The Executive notified Mr Ranbir Singh Kaloya of the procedure by way of letter dated 7 January 2010, confirming the commencement of the naming procedure under the Code of Practice:

• Paragraph 8.9.2 f and g  -   Knowing involvement in a serious breach, or series of breaches, of the Code

The Tribunal considered the evidence and found that Mr Ranbir Singh Kaloya was an associated individual, who had been knowingly involved in a series of breaches of the Code, in respect of the following matters: Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions (Case ref. 774947) and PCB Telecom Limited (Case ref. 766056).

The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Ranbir Singh Kaloya from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of any premium rate service for a period of five years, under paragraph 8.9.2g of the Code. 

Associated Individual 

Darshan Singh

Sanctions upheld against 

Procedure 

Paragraph 8.9.4

Sanctions 

The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Darshan Singh from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of any premium rate service for a period of two years, under paragraph 8.9.2g of the Code.

Case reference 805601

Summary 

PhonepayPlus had evidence suggesting that Mr Darshan Singh was involved in a number of companies which had been subject to adjudication in relation to a serious breach, or series of breaches, of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11^th Edition Amended April 2008) (‘the Code’).

The Tribunal considered a report prepared by the Executive in accordance with paragraph 8.9.4 of the Code and was minded to name Mr Darshan Singh as an associated individual. The Executive notified Mr Darshan Singh of the procedure by way of letter dated 7 January 2010, confirming the commencement of the naming procedure under the Code of Practice:

• Paragraph 8.9.2 f and g  -   Knowing involvement in a serious breach, or series of breaches, of the Code

The Tribunal considered the evidence and found that Mr Darshan Singh was an associated individual, who had been knowingly involved in a series of breaches of the Code, in respect of the following matter: Speedreview Limited (Case ref. 765871). The Tribunal did not consider that there was sufficient evidence to find that Mr Darshan Singh had been knowingly involved in the breaches of the Code by Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions (Case ref. 774947).

The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Darshan Singh from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of any premium rate service for a period of two years, under paragraph 8.9.2g of the Code.