Redacted Name

The Tribunal was asked to consider imposing a prohibition against [name redacted] pursuant to paragraph 4.8.2(g) of the 12th edition of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (the “Code”).

The case related to two cases investigated by the Executive which concerned the promotion and operation of adult video download services.

The Tribunal concluded that [name redacted] was an associated individual in respect of the providers investigated. However, there was insufficient evidence to establish that [name redacted] was “knowingly involved” in any breaches of the Code upheld in these cases. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not impose a prohibition on [name redacted].