|
Case reference 840403
Summary
By 7 July 2010, PhonepayPlus had received eight complaints in relation to the ‘Goldgames’ service, operating on shortcode 85085 and others. The service was promoted on the websites http://m.bobmobile.co.uk and http://bobmobile.co.uk.
The PhonepayPlus Executive noted that, of the eight complaints, three stated they were unaware the service was charged on a subscription basis, three stated that they experienced difficulty cancelling the service, two stated they did not receive their requested content and one stated that he or she had not requested the service, but was still being charged.
The PhonepayPlus Executive was concerned complainants were unaware that the service was charged on a subscription basis, that several complainants were parents contacting PhonepayPlus on behalf of their children, and that the service did not have Prior Permission. Furthermore, PhonepayPlus was concerned about issues relating to pricing information, subscription initiation and reminder text messages.
The Executive alleged that the service had contravened the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11th Edition Amended April 2008) (‘the Code’) and raised the following potential breaches under the Code of Practice:
- Paragraph 5.1.1 – Prior Permission
- Paragraph 5.7.1 – Pricing information (Cost)
- Paragraph 7.5.4a – Children’s service exceeding £3 per month
- Paragraph 7.12.3b – Subscription services (Promotional material)
- Paragraph 7.12.4b-f – Subscription services (Subscription initiation)
- Paragraph 7.12.5 – Subscription reminder message
The Tribunal upheld all of the breaches raised, except paragraph 7.12.3b. The revenue generated by the service fell within the upper range of Band 5 (£5,000 to £50,000). The Tribunal considered the case to be significant, issued a Formal Reprimand and imposed a fine of £25,000. The Tribunal ordered that the Information Provider remedy the breaches by seeking compliance advice in relation to this service within two weeks of the publication of this decision. Compliance advice is to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Executive within two weeks of receipt. The Tribunal commented that it expected claims for refunds to continue to be paid by the Information Provider for the full amount spent by complainants, except where there is good cause to believe that such claims are not valid.
Administrative Costs awarded: 100% |