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

Coretech Promo Limited

Publication Date
31 March 2016
Case Reference
71962
Procedure
Track 2
Adjudicated Party
Coretech Promo Limited
Service Type
Video
Tribunal's final assessment
Very Serious
Sanctions
Code 12 para 4.8.2d - Fine
Code 12 para 4.8.2b - Formal reprimand and/or warning
Code 12 para 4.8.2i - General refunds
Breaches raised
Code 12 4.2.4 Investigations
Code 12 2.3.3 Fairness
Summary

Between 18 April 2015 and 22 January 2016, the Executive received 99 complaints concerning a glamour video subscription service, charged at £3 per week, operating on dedicated shortcodes 65022 and 65025 and shared shortcode 81300 (the “Service”).

The Level 2 provider for the Service was Coretech Promo Limited (the “Level 2 provider”). The Level 1 provider for Service shortcode 65022 was IMImobile Europe Limited (“IMImobile”). The Level 1 provider for Service shortcode 81300 was Veoo Ltd (“Veoo”). The Level 1 provider for Service shortcode 65025 was Fonix Mobile Limited (“Fonix”).

Complainants variously alleged that the Service charges were unsolicited. In addition, 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 breaches of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (the "Code"):

•    Paragraph 4.2.4 – Provision of false information to PhonepayPlus
•    Rule 2.3.3 – Consent to charge

The Tribunal upheld the two breaches of the Code raised. The Level 2 provider’s revenue in relation to the Service was in Band 2 (£500,000 - £999,999). The Tribunal considered the case to be very serious and imposed a formal reprimand, a fine of £250,000, 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 Service, 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.  

Administrative charge recommendation:                                                                             100%