Service Provider 

MX Telecom Limited, London

Information Provider 

Multiplex Media Limited, Nottingham

Service Title and Type

Mobile Cash Quiz (promoted under the brands ‘Sure to Win’ and ‘Mobile Candy’)

Breaches upheld against

Multiplex Media Limited, Nottingham

Procedure

Standard

Case reference 790143

Summary 

The PhonepayPlus Executive (the ‘Executive’) received 53 complaints regarding a text prize competition subscription service operating on shortcodes 66333 and 63666. The service cost £2 per week and gave subscribers the chance to win a weekly prize, typically £500, by answering a general knowledge question sent to them by text. To join the service, consumers registered with one of the Information Provider’s promotional partners, selected this service and then opted-in. Originally, the opt-in was effected on-line but by February 2009 the opt-in was by means of a text message. 

Complainants stated that the service was unsolicited and that they had received unsolicited chargeable messages. During the course of its investigation the Tribunal was also concerned about issues in relation to the service being misleading. In addition, complainants stated that the ‘STOP’ command had not worked properly. PhonepayPlus raised the following potential breaches under the Code:

• Paragraph 5.2 – Legality
• Paragraph 5.4.1a – Fairness (Misleading)
• Paragraph 5.8 – Contact details
• Paragraph 7.6.6c – Competition rules
• Paragraph 7.12.3a-c – Promotional material subscription requirements
• Paragraph 7.12.6a – Subscription termination

The Tribunal did not uphold the alleged breaches of paragraphs 7.6.6c and 7.12.6a but upheld the remainder. The revenue generated by the service fell within the mid range of Band 2 (£250,000-£500,000). The Tribunal considered the case to be significant, issued a Formal Reprimand and imposed a fine of £50,000. The Tribunal ordered the Information Provider to seek compliance advice in respect of the issues identified by the Executive in relation to this service and its promotion within two weeks from the date of publication of this adjudication, such advice to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Executive within two weeks of receipt. The Tribunal also ordered that claims for refunds are 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%

Royal Northern Star Ltd, London

Claire Powell, London

Unknown, fixed-line sexual entertainment service

Royal Northern Star Ltd, London

Standard

Case reference 819430

Summary 

In September 2009, the Executive received an industry complaint from a Network Operator in relation to a range of nine 070 numbers operating the same service that contained the same recorded explicit adult content. Upon calling one of these 070 numbers, a recording of a female voice would play. The recording stated that she (the female voice) would provide her mobile number and email address later in the call, with a view to meeting and engaging in sexual activity at no charge.

During the course of its monitoring, the Executive found the same recording occurred on various 070 numbers. The recording lasted 25 minutes, and a mobile number and email address were provided at the end of the recording. However, when the Executive called the mobile number, it was connected to a voicemail and the Executive was unable to speak to anyone. The Service Provider terminated the service within 11 days of its commencement on the basis of its own monitoring

The Executive was concerned that this service was a misleading sexual entertainment service (SES), operating on an incorrect prefix and designed to keep consumers on the line for as long as possible. The Executive believed that this service contravened the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11^th Edition Amended April 2008) (‘the Code’) and raised the following potential breaches under the Code:

• Paragraph 3.3.1 – Designated number range
• Paragraph 5.4.1a – Fairness (Misleading)
• Paragraph 5.4.2 – Undue delay
• Paragraph 7.11.5a-c – Sexual entertainment services – Introductory message

The Tribunal upheld all the breaches raised. The revenue generated by the service fell within the lower range of Band 6 (£1 - £5,000). The Tribunal considered the breaches to be serious, issued a Formal Reprimand and imposed a fine of £750. It also ordered that claims for refunds are to be paid by the Service 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%

Service Provider 

Zamano Limited, London

Information Provider 

Service Title and Type

gstore.tv, veage.com and playminal.com – Subscription/Mobile games club

Breaches upheld against

Zamano Limited, London

Procedure

Standard

Case reference 811356

Summary 

The Executive received eight complaints from members of the public in relation to this subscription mobile content service operating under the shortcode 88788. All eight complainants stated that the first they had heard of this service was upon receipt of unsolicited text message(s) and, in some cases, had been charged £3 per week for a service to which they had not subscribed.

The message logs supplied by the Service Provider demonstrated that some complainants had sent the command word ‘STOP’ to the shortcode, yet continued to receive chargeable message(s). PhonepayPlus raised the following potential breaches under the Code:

• Paragraph 5.2  - Legality
• Paragraph 5.4.1a – Fairness (Misleading)
• Paragraph 5.7.1 – Pricing information (Cost)
• Paragraph 5.7.2 – Pricing information (Prominence)
• Paragraph 7.12.2 – ‘STOP’ command
• Paragraph 7.12.5 - Subscription reminders
• Paragraph 7.12.6a – Subscription termination

The Tribunal did not uphold a breach of 7.12.2, but upheld the remainder of the breaches.  The revenue generated by the service fell within the mid range of Band 5 (£5,000-£50,000). The Tribunal considered the case to be serious, issued a Formal Reprimand and imposed a fine of £15,000.The Tribunal also ordered that claims for refunds are to be paid by the Service Provider for the full amount spent by complainants, except where there is good cause to believe that such claims are not valid.

Administrative charges awarded: 100%