Mobtech UG (Case reference: 145055)
| Case Number | 145055 |
| Published date | 07 June 2021 |
| Year | 2021 |
| Adjudicated Party | Mobtech UG |
| Procedure Type | Track 2 (Phone-Paid Services Authority) |
1
Tribunal meeting number 281
Case reference: 145055
Level 2 provider: Mobtech UG
Type of service: Subscription alert service
Level 1 provider: txtNation 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
1. This case concerned a subscription alerts service called ‘Secret Sales Codes’, which
provided consumers with voucher codes for retail stores.
2. The service operated on short code 60031 and the cost was stated to be a single charge
of £4.50 per month.
3. The promotional material supplied by the Level 2 provider indicated that the service
used two opt-in methods – a PIN verification method and a MO (Mobile-Originated)
keyword method. However, the Level 1 provider confirmed that no opt-ins had taken
place via the MO keyword method.
4. For the PIN verification method, consumers were sent a PIN after entering their mobile
number onto the service website and service charges would commence once the issued
PIN was entered into the service website. The Level 2 provider stated that it used
Lexington Verify to verify PIN entries.
5. The Level 1 provider stated that the service commenced operation on 22 December
2017.
6. The Level 1 provider stated that the service was suspended on 30 October 2018.
7. The Executive started to receive complaints about the service on 23 December 2017.
However, 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.
8. 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
2
measures against a provider of an “information society service” based in an EEA
country.
9. Accordingly, on 7 June 2018, the Executive sent an e-commerce referral to the German
Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy. On 30 August 2018, the German
authority confirmed that it could not take measures to investigate, allowing the
Executive to investigate the matter. The Executive took derogation on 30 August 2018
and informed the Level 2 provider of its intention to take its own measures in
10. The Executive received 92 complaints concerning the service of which 14 complaints
were received after derogation. The first complaint was received on 23 December 2017
and the first complaint after derogation was received on 29 September 2018. The main
complaint period post derogation was between September 2018 and November 2018.
The complainants variously alleged that they had not signed up to the service nor
agreed to be charged by the Level 2 provider and were unaware of the service or what
they had been charged for.
Apparent breaches of the Code
11. The Executive sent a warning notice to the Level 2 provider on 23 March 2021 in which
the following breaches of the PSA’s Code were raised:
Rule 2.3.3 – Consent to charge
Rule 2.3.2 – Misleading
Paragraph 4.2.3 – Failure to provide information.
12. The Level 2 provider did not acknowledge receipt of the warning notice.
13. On 21 May 2021, the Tribunal reached a decision in respect of the alleged breaches.
Preliminary issue – service and proceeding in absence
14. The Tribunal considered as a preliminary issue whether the Level 2 provider had been
served with the warning notice and whether it had been notified of the hearing date.
15. The Tribunal noted that the warning notice had been sent by post on 23 March 2021 to
the Level 2 provider’s registered address. It was also sent by email, and the email had
been successfully delivered to the email address for the Level 2 provider’s director. The
Tribunal further noted that the Level 2 provider’s office was closed and so the warning
notice had not been delivered by post, however the Level 2 provider had not updated
its address on the PSA’s registration system. The Tribunal noted that providers have a
responsibility to have registered their up-to-date and active contact details with the
PSA.
To continue reading
Request your trial