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

Adjudication

Publication Date
14 April 2016
Case Reference
71971
Procedure
Track 2
Adjudicated Party
Intrugo 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 4.8.2a - Remedy the breach
Code 12 para 4.8.2i - General refunds
Breaches raised
Code 12 4.2.4 Investigations
Code 12 2.3.3 Fairness
Summary

Between 19 March 2015 and 20 January 2016, the Executive received 329 complaints concerning a glamour video subscription service, charged at £3 per week, operating on shared shortcodes 80208, 88222, 80252, 66033, 81300, 88150 and 82999 (the “Service”). 

The Level 1 provider for Service shortcode 66033 was Zamano Solutions Limited. The Level 1 provider for Service shortcodes 81300, 82999 and 88150 was Veoo Ltd. The Level 1 provider for Service shortcodes 88222, 80208 and 80252 was IMImobile Europe Limited. 

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 1 (£1,000,000 or over). 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 remedy the breach by ensuring that it has robust verification of each consumer’s consent to be charged before making any further charge to the consumer, including for existing subscribers to the Service. The Tribunal also imposed 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%

Click here to view the Adjudication decision