Hectiq B.V. (Case reference: 28901)
| Published date | 21 August 2013 |
| Case Number | 28901 |
| Adjudicated Party | Hectiq B.V. |
| Procedure Type | Emergency Procedure (Phone-Paid Services Authority) |
Code Compliance Panel
Tribunal Decision
5
Tribunal Sitting Number 131 / Case 1
Case Reference: 28901
Level 2 provider
Hectiq B.V
Type of Service
Competition - non-scratchcard
Level 1 provider
Oxygen8 Communications UK Ltd
Network operator
All Mobile Network Operators
THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE LEVEL 2 PROVIDER UNDER PARAGRAPH 4.5
OF THE CODE
BACKGROUND
The Level 2 provider, Hectiq B.V operated an online subscription mobile content and competition
quiz service using the brand names “ZigZagFone” and “Carambaba” (the “Service”). The Service
operated on the premium rate shortcode 88101 at a cost of £4.50 per week (three mobile
terminating messages per week at £1.50) and was promoted via affiliate marketing
. The Level 1
provider for the Service was Oxygen8 Communications UK Ltd.
The Service offered consumers the opportunity to receive mobile content that included wallpapers,
ringtones and celebrity gossip.
Consumers were also offered the opportunity to participate in quiz
competitions. The consumer who
answered the most questions correctly in the shortest time
period during the competition period, won a prize, such as Apple products. The competition period
was due to end on 31 December 2013.
The Service operated from 17 June 2013 to 8 July 2013 (when it
was suspended as a result of the
use of the Emergency procedure).
Serious concerns regarding the promotion of the Service were uncovered as a result of in-house
monitoring of the Service conducted by the PhonepayPlus Research and Market Intelligence Team
(“RMIT”). The monitoring revealed that affiliate marketing, which generated consumer traffic to the
Service, appeared to utilise a form of malware (ransomware) that stopped consumers’ internet
browsers working, resulting in users being unable to access a large number of popular websites,
including Facebook, Ebay and
Google. Users were told that they were required to sign up to the
Service (and/or other premium rate services) in order to unblock their browsers.
Monitoring
On 28 June 2013, the RMIT visited the website “wifihackpassword.com” (Appendix A
), which
offered users a file that purported to enable them to hack into locked Wi-
Fi networks. The RMIT
clicked on a button marked “Download Now!” which resulted in the software being downloaded.
The RMIT open
ed the file. Instantly a dialogue box appeared and offered a seemingly essential
update which the RMIT declined. A further dialogue box appeared that stated:
“Error! Too old version! Update please!”
The only option the RMIT was given was to click “OK”. The RMIT noted
from previous monitoring
experiences that accepting the upgrade led it to the landing pages of a premium rate subscription
service. Upon subscription to the service promoted, a password was “unlocked
”. However, the
password had no function and no upgrade took
place. The RMIT’s internet browser was blocked
by the malware and was not unblocked following entry into the subscription Service.
Code Compliance Panel
Tribunal Decision
6
The RMIT conducted an additional monitoring session on 1 July
2013. The RMIT opened the
Internet Explorer
browser and found it could not access the Google homepage as it was still
blocked from the previous monitoring session (Appendix B). The browser displa
yed a webpage
that contained a warning that stated:
“This website has been blocked for you! Steps to access this website again. 1. Click the unlock
button below. 2. Pick survey to verify that you are human. 3. Complete Survey. 4. Continue
using this website.
“This website has been blocked because of your
recent activity. Your actions have been
marked as a spam bot like. To visit this website again follow the instructions on the left [see
numbered point above]. This is made for security reasons.
“Information about you:
Country name: UK
City:
IP: [IP address redacted]
“Click here to unblock.”
In exactly the same manner as during the previous monitoring sessions
, the RMIT clicked on the
“Click here to unlock” button, and a further pop-up appeared which stated (Appendix C):
“WARNING! The content you are browsing is blocked! You must complete at least one offer to
have access to this page.”
The RMIT selected an option that stated, “Chance to WIN an iPad 3, join ZigZagFone subscription
4.50p/w!” The RMIT was subsequently directed to the Level 2 provider’s ZigZagFone landing page
which opened in a new browser window (Appendix D).
The RMIT followed the instructions contained on the landing page and answered one multiple
choice question. The RMIT was directed to enter its MSISDN and click “Confirm”. The next screen
prompted the RMIT to send the keyword “GAME” to the shortcode 88101 to opt-in to the Service.
The RMIT monitoring phone received a free text message, again prompting the RMIT to send the
trigger keyword to the premium rate shortcode. Upon doing this, the RMIT
received subscription
confirmation messages that confirmed the RMIT had successfully opted-in to the Service.
The RMIT eventually closed all the browser windows that had been opened during the monitoring
session and opened a new Internet Explorer
window. The browser displayed the same webpage
notifying that the browser was blocked (Appendix B).
The RMIT selected the “unblock” button and was led back to the “Warning” pop-
up page that
directed the user to complete an “offer” to unblock the browser (Appendix C).
The RMIT finished
the monitoring the session.
The RMIT conducted an additional monitoring session on 2 July 2013. The RMIT again opened the
Internet Explorer browser and found it was still blocked (Appendix B
). The RMIT selected the
“unblock” button and was led back to the “Warning” pop-up page that directed the user to complete
an “offer” to unblock the browser (Appendix C). The RMIT selected the second offer,
“Chance to
win iPhone5, join Carambaba subscription 4.50p/w,” and was dire
cted to the Level 2 provider’s
Carambaba landing page. The RMIT completed one multiple choice question and was then
To continue reading
Request your trial