Mobilegate Limited (Case reference: 01563)
| Case Number | 01563 |
| Year | 2009 |
| Published date | 05 August 2009 |
| Adjudicated Party | Mobilegate Limited |
| Procedure Type | Track 2 (Phone-Paid Services Authority) |
THE CODE COMPLIANCE PANEL OF PHONEPAYPLUS
TRIBUNAL DECISION
Thursday 23 July 2009
TRIBUNAL SITTING No. 32 / CASE 3
CASE REFERENCE: 771646/AM
Service provider & area: Dialogue Communications Ltd, London
Information provider & area: MobilegateLtd, Australia
Type of service: Subscription-based chat and date service
Service title:maybemeet.me, uksinglesonline.com
Service number:80200 and 80177
Cost:80200 (£1.50 to receive a message, subsequently
charged £3 on 1 November)
80177 (£5 to receive the service)
Network operator:All mobile operators
Number of complainants:68
THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE INFORMATION PROVIDER
UNDER PARAGRAPH 8.7 OF THE CODE
BACKGROUND
The PhonepayPlus Executive (the ‘Executive’)received 68 complaints (including twocomplaints
from websites companies) in relation to thesubscription-based chat and date service operating
on shortcodes 80200 and 80177. The Information Providerdescribed the service as a ‘fantasy
chat service where no relationships can be developed’and stated they promoted it through two
websites called maybemeet.me anduksingles-online.com.
Complainants stated that they received an unsolicited promotional and chargeable text
message after posting a personal advertisement or profile on one of a number of other free
dating or social networking sites, such as gumtree.com and flirtomatic.com. None of the
complainants stated they had placed personal profiles or advertisements on maybemeet.meor
uksingles-online.com. Complainants stated that the unsolicited text message they received had
been similar to or along the lines of the following:
“FREE MESSAGE - Hi (complainant’s name), Mandy from Gumtreewants to chat to you and
maybe meet! TXT YES TO CONNECT NOW! SAFEDIVERT 080006800764 2end txtstop
msg3gbp3subsc”
Complainants stated that they had responded ‘YES’ to the service text message in the belief
that they were making contact with genuine individuals responding to their personal
advertisement or profile, rather than an ‘operator’ who was operating through a premium rate
service. Complainants who responded ‘YES’ were entered into the subscription-based service
costing between £1.50 and £3 per message plus £3 or £5 per week subscription charge.
Complaint Investigation
Standard Procedure
The Executive conducted this matter as a standard procedure investigation in accordance with
paragraph 8.7 of the Code.
A breach letterdated 8 April 2009 and an Information Providerundertaking formweresentby
the Executiveto the Service Provider raising potential breaches of paragraphs 3.3.1, 5.2,
5.4.1a, 5.7.1, 5.8, 7.3.3b, 7.12.2, 7.12.3a and 7.12.4 of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11th
EditionAmended April 2008) (‘the Code’). A formal response and a signed Information Provider
undertaking formwerereceived fromthe Service Provider dated 8 April 2009. The Information
Providerrequested further information and evidence regarding breach 5.2 and 5.4.1a. This was
provided by the Executive who received no further response from the Information Provider in
relation to this information. The Executive issued an addendum to the breach letter dated 26
June 2009 raising a potential breach of paragraph8.3.3 of the Code. The Information Provider
responded to the addendum in correspondence dated 7 July 2009 by submitting new responses
to all the breaches raised in the original breach letter dated 8 April 2009.
The Tribunal made a decision on the breaches raised by the Executive on 23 July 2009.
SUBMISSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
ALLEGED BREACH ONE
DESIGNATED NUMBER PREFIX (Paragraph 3.3.1)
‘Where certain codes or number ranges have been designated by either Ofcomor a network
operator for use only for particular purposes or for the provision of particular categories of
service, or where Ofcom or a network operator has restricted certain codes or number ranges
from being used for a particular purposes or for the provision of particular categories of service,
those codes or number ranges must not be used in contravention of these restrictions. Ofcom’s
designations will have precedence over any issued by a network operator’
1.TheExecutive submitted that it was of the opinion that themanner in which the service
operated and its content appeared to suggest that this service was an ‘adult’ (sexual)
service, in nature, and as such was operating on an incorrectly designated prefixed
shortcode (‘69’ and ‘89‘ prefixed shortcodes are reserved by the mobile operators for
services of a sexual nature). The Executive submitted that the service was promoted
and operated via two shortcodes with the prefix ‘80’. The Executive made reference to
the Information Provider’s description of the service that stated as follows:
“this is a fantasy service with sexual overtones”
and
“our clients websites are titillating, with images of bare bottoms and partially exposed
breast, bright colours and people in party mode. The website is directed at those looking
for sexy fun”
The Executive also made reference to thecomplainant call log, allegingthatitshowed
that the service had been of a sexual nature and, as such, should have been promoted
via shortcode with a ’69’ or ‘89’ prefix.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting