We use cookies to make this website work better for you. Find out more

New SMS Media Ltd

Publication Date
6 August 2015
Case Reference
29396
Procedure
Track 2
Adjudicated Party
New SMS Media Ltd
Service Type
Non-professional advice
Tribunal's final assessment
Very Serious
Sanctions
Code 12 para 4.8.2b - Formal reprimand and/or warning
Code 12 para 4.8.2d - Fine
Code 12 para 4.8.2i - General refunds
Code 12 para 4.8.2k - Compliance audit
Code 12 para 4.8.2b - Formal reprimand and/or warning
Breaches raised
Code 12 2.3.1 Fairness
Code 12 2.3.3 Fairness
Code 12 2.4.1 Privacy
Summary

Between 13 June 2013 and 2 September 2014, PhonepayPlus received 46 complaints from consumers in relation to adult and glamour video subscription services (the “Service(s)”) operated by the Level 2 provider, New SMS Media Ltd (the “Level 2 provider”) until January 2014 when the Services were novated to another Level 2 provider, Venture247 Limited (“Venture247”). The Services were operated under the names “Mobteenxx”, “F**ckMeHard24” and “GlamourBabesxxx” on the premium rate shortcodes 89320 and 88150. Consumers were charged £3 or £4.50 per week depending on the Service they engaged with. The Services commenced at different times; the earliest date was in March 2012 and some continue to be operated by Venture247.

The Services were promoted online via banner advertisements or a wireless application protocol (“WAP”) push message which was sent to consumers. Consumers subscribed to the Services, using mobile originating (“MO”) opt-in or a WAP link. Consumers could also engage with the Services using an Android application (the “Application”) which utilised a MO opt-in. 

The majority of complainants stated that they had received unsolicited, reverse-billed text messages but that they had not engaged with the Service. In addition, some complainants reported receiving unsolicited charges and that they had not received any text messages from the Services. Further concerns were identified regarding the Application, as the PhonepayPlus Research and Market Intelligence team (“RMIT”) found that the Application was malicious as it suppressed Service messages. 

The Executive raised the following potential breaches of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (12th Edition) (the "Code"): 

  • Rule 2.3.1 - Fair and equitable treatment
  • Rule 2.3.3 - Consent to charge
  • Rule 2.4.2 - Consent to market

The Tribunal upheld all the breaches of the Code raised. The Level 2 provider’s revenue in relation to the Services was Band 3 (£250,000-£499,999). The Tribunal considered the case to be very serious and imposed a formal reprimand, a warning that if the Level 2 provider fails to demonstrate that it has robust verifiable evidence of consumers’ consent to charge in the future it should expect to receive a significant penalty, a fine of £200,000, and a requirement that the Level 2 provider must refund all consumers who claim a refund, for the full amount spent by them on the Services, within 28 days of their claim, save where there is good cause to believe that such claims are not valid, and provide evidence to PhonepayPlus that such refunds have been made. In addition, a requirement was imposed that, within three months of the Level 2 provider re-commencing trading, the Level 2 provider must submit to a compliance audit of its procedures for ensuring consumers provide valid consent to be charged and that it has robustly verifiable evidence of that consent, the recommendations of the audit must be implemented within a period defined by PhonepayPlus, the audit must be conducted by a third party approved by PhonepayPlus and the costs of such audit must be paid by the Level 2 provider. 

Administrative charge recommendation:                                                                                         100%