Recent adjudications

The following cases were heard at a meeting of the PhonepayPlus Tribunal on 19 August and published on this website on the 2 September 2010. To view the full adjudications, please search by date or case number on the PhonepayPlus adjudications database .

Please click here to view a list of Service Providers barred for the non-payment of fines .

Service Provider	MX Telecom Limited, London
Information Provider	Multiplex Media Limited, Nottingham
Service Title and Type	Competition subscription service - Mobile Cash Quiz (promoted under the brands ‘Sure to Win’ and ‘Mobile Candy’)
Breaches upheld against	Multiplex Media Limited, Nottingham
Procedure	Review
Case reference 790143 Summary This case was first considered and adjudicated at the Tribunal of 21 January 2010 following a standard procedure, where breaches were upheld in respect of paragraphs 5.2, 5.4.1a, 5.8 and 7.12.3a-c of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11^th Edition Amended April 2008) (the ‘Code’). The breaches related to a competition subscription service called ‘Mobile Cash Quiz’, and complainants stated that they had received unsolicited chargeable text messages and that the ‘STOP’ command had not worked. The Tribunal considered the breaches to be significant; issued a Formal Reprimand; imposed a £50,000 fine; and, 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 claims for refunds 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. Following the adjudication, the Information Provider submitted an application for a review of the case on a number of grounds. The Information Provider’s application was considered by the Chair of the Code of Compliance Panel (‘the CCP’) in accordance with paragraph 8.10.3 of the Code. The Chair of the CCP granted leave on the following grounds: the upholding of paragraph 5.2 of the Code in relation to unsolicited text messages; reasons 2 and 3 that were upheld in relation to paragraph 5.4.1a of the Code; reason 2 that was upheld in relation to paragraph 5.8 of the Code; and, the upholding of 7.12.3a-c of the Code. Having reviewed the case, the Review Tribunal upheld the breaches of paragraphs 5.4.1a (Ground 2), 5.8 (Ground 2) and 7.12.3a-c of the Code, affirming the decision of the original Tribunal. Ground 3 in relation to paragraph 5.4.1a fell away. The Review Tribunal found the breaches to be significant and ordered that the Information Provider remedy the breaches by seeking compliance advice in relation to the upheld breaches 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 Review Tribunal reduced the original fine to £40,000. The Review Tribunal did not alter any of the other sanctions imposed by the original Tribunal. Administrative Costs awarded: 100%

Service Provider	Netsize UK Limited, London
Information Provider	Guerilla Mobile GmbH, Germany
Service Title and Type	Subscription download service - ‘Goldgames’
Breaches upheld against	Guerilla Mobile GmbH, Germany
Procedure	Standard
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 (11^th 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%

Service Provider	mBlox Limited, London
Information Provider	Sonnerier, France
Service Title and Type	n/a
Breaches upheld against	Sonnerier, France
Procedure	Standard
Case reference 773908 Summary This service was the subject of a PhonepayPlus investigation and adjudication (case reference 773908) that resulted in sanctions being imposed on the Information Provider known as Sonnerier on 17 December 2009. One of the sanctions imposed by the Tribunal was a fine of £175,000. Sonnerier was advised of the above sanction by PhonepayPlus in an adjudication letter sent by post and sent electronically on 6 January 2010. This correspondence included invoices 9621 and 9624 in respect of the fine and administrative charges associated with the cost of the investigation. Sonnerier failed to make payment in respect of the invoices, resulting in the sanctions being reverted to the Service Provider. The Service Provider made a part-payment of the fine sanction, a sum of £102,784.25 (representing the sum it had withheld from Sonnerier). The Executive re-issued the invoices to Sonnerier on 7 July 2010, covering the outstanding fine amount and the administrative fine, a sum of £79,093.75. No payment was made, and the Executive believed that this contravened the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice 11^th Edition Amended April 2008 (‘the Code’) and amounted to further breaches of the Code by virtue of the following Code provisions: Paragraph 8.9.3b (in respect of non-payment of fine imposed under paragraph 8.9.2d) Paragraph 8.12 (in respect of non-payment of an invoiced administrative charge) The Tribunal upheld further breaches of the Code under paragraphs 8.9.3b and 8.12. The Tribunal took the view that non-compliance with any sanction imposed by a Tribunal is very serious and could potentially incur a maximum fine, although the circumstances of the individual case should be taken into account when deciding which sanctions are appropriate. The Tribunal ordered that the existing bar on the Information Provider operating any premium rate service be extended for a further two years, starting from 17 December 2010. Administrative Costs awarded: 100%

Search for older adjudications

For Business