Cellcast UK Ltd (Case reference: 27290)
| Published date | 18 September 2013 |
| Case Number | 27290 |
| Year | 2013 |
| Adjudicated Party | Cellcast UK Ltd |
| Procedure Type | Track 2 (Phone-Paid Services Authority) |
Tribunal Sitting Number 133 / Case 1
Case Reference: 27290
Level 2 provider: Cellcast UK Limited
Type of Service: Entertainment - Adult
Level 1 provider: Velti DR 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 28 February 2012 and 23 July 2013, PhonepayPlus received 22 complaints from
consumers, in relation to a glamour/adult picture and virtual chat service (the “Service”). The
Service is operated by the Level 2 provider Cellcast UK Limited on a number of premium
rate shortcodes including 69222, 69444, 69633 and 80090. The Level 1 provider is Velti DR
Limited. The Service commenced operation on 21 November 2011 and is currently
operational.
The Service is currently advertised using on-screen promotions on various television
channels. Consumers enter the Service by sending a keyword to one of the premium rate
shortcodes. Consumers are charged £3 per picture received via two messages charged at
£1.50 each. Where a keyword is not recognised, the Service automatically switches
consumers to the virtual chat element of the Service. For the virtual chat element of the
Service, consumers are charged £1.50 per text chat message received from an operator
Complaints
The majority of complaints were from family members regarding under 18 year olds
interacting with the Service and accessing inappropriate adult content. In addition, many
complainants reported bill shock. The maximum cost incurred by a complainant was
£3,029.47 over the course of one week.
The Executive noted the content of the following complainant’s accounts:
“13 year old son has run up this bill, I am not fully aware of the promotion description for
the service.”
“on 20th and 21st april our 13 year old son incurred £850 charges [sic].”
“I don’t really know what this service is. This came to my attention on receiving a colossal
bill recently (£900+). I would like to get some refund. This was in error of a 12 year old
boy.”
“Consumers [sic] 14 year old son has accessed adult premium rate text service –
consumers [sic] son admitted using service and entering a fake D.O.B”
During the Executive’s investigation, complainant message logs were obtained from the
Level 2 provider. The Executive submitted that they consistently showed complainants had
initially interacted with the picture element of the Service but inadvertently or unknowingly
engaged with the chat element of the Service at a later stage.
Monitoring
To continue reading
Request your trial