Globo Mobile Kommunikation UG (Case reference: 147804)

Case Number147804
Year2021
Published date31 March 2021
Adjudicated PartyGlobo Mobile Kommunikation UG
Procedure TypeTrack 2 (Phone-Paid Services Authority)
1
Tribunal meeting number 279
Case reference: 147804
Level 2 provider: Globo Mobile Kommunikation UG
Type of service: Digital payments
Level 1 provider: Dynamic Mobile Billing Limited
Network operator: All networks
This case was brought against the Level 2 provider under Paragraph 4.5 of the 14th Edition of
the Code of Practice.
Background and investigation
The case concerned a voucher subscription service called “Voucher Promotions”, which
operated on a PIN-opt in flow using shortcode 65202 (“the Service”). The Level 2 provider for
the Service was Globo Mobile Kommunikation UG (the “Level 2 provider”). The Service was
charged at £4.50 per month to receive monthly discount voucher codes and sale notifications,
for brands and retailers via text message (SMS) to a mobile phone number (MSISDN). The
Service was registered with the PSA on 17 January 2018.
The Level 1 provider in respect of the Service was Dynamic Mobile Billing Ltd (the “Level 1
provider”).
The Level 1 and Level 2 providers both stated that the value chain consisted of a third-party
named Kalastia Consulting Limited (the “Supplier”). The Supplier had referred to itself as the
“Sub-L1”. The Code does not recognise “Sub-L1s”.
The Level 2 provider stated that the Service commenced operation on 23 January 2018. It also
said that the Service was promoted through co-registration promotion offers for shopping
vouchers between 23 January 2018 and 1 December 2018 and would not be promoted again
in the future. The Level 2 provider also supplied the following information on the Service: that
consumers opted in by entering their mobile MSISDN into a confirmation box within a
promotion. Following this, they received a PIN to their mobile MSISDN which they were
required to enter into a second box to verify their entry into the subscription. From that point
on, consumers received discount voucher codes straight to their mobile MSISDN within a
monthly SMS.
At the beginning of the investigation, the Level 2 provider advised that the Service was
dormant (obtaining no new subscribers but still billing existing subscribers). Subsequently, the
Service was described by other parties in the value chain as being disconnected (gaining no
new subscribers and no longer billing existing subscribers).
2
The PSA received its first complaint about the Service on 23 January 2018. Since the Level 2
provider was based in Germany, the Executive was required to refer its concerns to the
Member State in which the Level 2 provider was based before opening a formal investigation.
Prior to the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union and the Single Market, and the
government’s introduction of the Communications Act (e-Commerce) (EU Exit) Regulations
2020, the PSA was first required to take additional steps prior to taking any measures against a
provider of an “information society service” based in an EEA country.
Accordingly, on 26 July 2018, the Executive informed the Level 2 provider of its intention to
send a formal referral to Germany. The Executive duly sent the e-Commerce referral to
Germany. On 30 August 2018, the German authority confirmed that it did not intend to take
its own measures against the Level 2 provider. The Executive therefore took derogation as of
30 August 2018 and informed the Level 2 provider of its intention to take its own measures in
accordance with Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2000/31/EC.
The Executive received 112 complaints about the Service, of which 80 of these complaints
were received after obtaining derogation on 30 August 2018. The main complaint period was
between September 2018 and January 2019. The complainants variously alleged that they did
not sign up to nor agreed to be charged by the Level 2 provider and were unaware of the
Service or what they were being charged for.
The Executive sent out a questionnaire on 29 October 2019 to the 112 consumers who had
complained about the Service. A total of 21 consumers responded to the questionnaire. 18
consumers provided comprehensive answers, but 3 consumers could not remember any
details about the matter or provided incomplete responses to the questions asked.
While the Level 2 provider communicated with the Executive for most of the investigation, it
regularly requested extensions to the deadlines set by the Executive. In addition, when
responses were received, they appeared incomplete and did not provide sufficient detail. The
Executive did not receive a response to the sixth direction. The sixth direction requested
information in relation to the revenue generated by the Service. The Level 2 provider failed to
provide this information or give an explanation for its lack of response.
The Executive sent a Warning Notice to the Level 2 provider in which the following breaches of
the PSA’s Code were raised:
Rule 2.3.2 Misleading
Rule 2.3.3 Consent to charge
Paragraph 4.2.3 Failure to provide information.
The Level 2 provider did not acknowledge receipt of the Warning Notice.
On 16 March 2021, the Tribunal reached a decision on the breaches.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT