By continuing to browse our site, you are consenting to the use of cookies.
Click here for more information on the cookies we use. Hide

Quick Links


Publication Date
17 March 2016
Case Reference
Track 2
Adjudicated Party
Cellso Ltd
Service Type
Tribunal's final assessment
Breaches raised
Code 12 2.3.4 Fairness

Between 9 February 2015 and 22 January 2016, the Executive received 158 complaints concerning a glamour video subscription service, charged at £3 per week, operating on dedicated shortcode 80027, and shared shortcodes 66033, 88150, and 82999  (the “Service”). The Level 2 provider for the Service was Cellso Limited (the “Level 2 provider”). The Level 1 provider for Service shortcode 66033 was Zamano Solutions Limited. The Level 1 provider for Service shortcode 80027 was Fonix Mobile Limited. The Level 1 provider for Service shortcodes 82999 and 88150 was Veoo Ltd.

After analysing complainant message logs, the Executive noted that there was a high failure rate of chargeable messages following the purported consumer opt-ins, and the delivery status of Service messages was unclear.

The Executive raised the following potential breach of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (the "Code"): 

  • Rule 2.3.4 – Undue delay

The Tribunal, having considered all the evidence, did not uphold the alleged breach, for the reasons given in the adjudication.

Click here to view the Adjudication decision