Amectro Ltd (Case reference: 13335)
| Case Number | 13335 |
| Published date | 09 January 2014 |
| Year | 2014 |
| Adjudicated Party | Amectro Ltd |
| Procedure Type | Track 2 (Phone-Paid Services Authority) |
Code Compliance Panel
Tribunal Decision
1
Tribunal Sitting Number 140 / Case 1
Case reference: 13335
Level 2 provider: Amectro Ltd
Type of service: Mobile downloads
Level 1 provider: OpenMarket Limited
Network operator: All Mobile Network operators
THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE LEVEL 2 PROVIDER UNDER PARAGRAPH 4.4
OF THE CODE
BACKGROUND
Between 26 September 2012 and 18 June 2013, PhonepayPlus received 19 complaints from
consumers in relation to a pay-per-stream glamour video download service (the “Service”)
operated by the Level 2 provider Amectro Ltd under brand names including “Home Fun” and “Sexy
hot babes!”. The Service operated on the premium rate shortcode 89800 and cost £3.00 for 24
hours access or £3.00 per download depending on the method of entry. The Level 1 provider was
OpenMarket Limited. The Service operated between 8 February 2011 and 12 March 2013, when it
was voluntarily suspended by the Level 1 provider.
The majority of complainants stated that they had not engaged with the Service but had been
charged. Certain complainants acknowledged receiving messages from the Service but stated that
they were unsolicited. The maximum cost incurred by a complainant was reported to be £165.00.
The Investigation
The Executive conducted this matter as a Track 2 investigation in accordance with paragraph 4.4
of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (12th Edition) (the “Code”).
The adjudication was listed to be heard on 31 October 2013, however, prior to consideration of the
breaches, the Tribunal adjourned the case to allow the Executive time to ensure that the Level 2
provider had received the breach letter and was aware of the proceedings. The Executive sent a
further copy of the breach letter to the Level 2 provider by post (to the registered address) and
email on 5 November 2013. Within the breach letter the Executive raised the following breach of
the Code:
• Rule 2.3.3 – Consent to charge
The Level 2 provider did not provide a response to the breach letter. The Tribunal noted that the
postal records showed the letter had been signed for and was satisfied that the Executive had
used all reasonable endeavours to ensure the breach letter had been served on the Level 2
provider. On 12 December 2013, the Tribunal reached a decision on the breach raised by the
Executive.
SUBMISSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
ALLEGED BREACH 1
Rule 2.3.3
“Consumers must not be charged for premium rate services without their consent. Level 2
providers must be able to provide evidence which establishes that consent.”
To continue reading
Request your trial