Mobvista Ltd (Case reference: 01641)
| Case Number | 01641 |
| Year | 2009 |
| Published date | 08 July 2009 |
| Adjudicated Party | Mobvista Ltd |
| Procedure Type | Emergency Procedure (Phone-Paid Services Authority) |
43
THE CODE COMPLIANCE PANEL OF PHONEPAYPLUS
TRIBUNAL DECISION
Thursday 25 June 2009 TRIBUNAL SITTING No. 30 / CASE 4
CASE REFERENCE: 791415/DM
Information provider & area: Mobvista Ltd, London
Service provider & area: MX Telecom Limited, London
Type of service: Virtual Chat Service
Service title: Mobvista Chat Service
Service number: 67000 and 78222
Cost: £1.50 - £2.00 per service message received, 25p
for every user message sent
Network operator: All Mobile Operators
Number of complainants: 45
THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE INFORMATION PROVIDER BY AN
EMERGENCY PROCEDURE
UNDER PARAGRAPH 8.6 OF THE CODE
BACKGROUND
The PhonepayPlus Executive (the ‘Executive’) received a total of 45 complaints relating
to an adult virtual chat service that operated on shortcodes 67000 and 78222. The
Executive was alerted to this service by complaints made by members of the public.
Complaints included the receipt of unsolicited texts, problems with the operation of the
‘STOP’ command and being misled into interacting with the service by operators
purporting to be local women who genuinely used the service rather than paid operators.
The Executive investigated the service and requested complainant message logs from
the Service Provider. These logs showed that the service sent message spend
reminders to users after they had spent £10 but continued to send them chargeable
messages without requiring a positive response from them that they wished to continue
with the service resulting in high mobile phone bills. The logs also showed that users
were being misled by the service operators into believing that they were chatting to
genuine local girls rather than fantasy chat operators.
The Service
The service offered the user the opportunity to engage in fantasy chat and was staffed
by operators who responded to users’ text messages. The service was promoted via the
web, print and through promotional text messages being sent to consumers. The
Executive formed the view that the service operated as a virtual text chat service and
operated in the following way: A user would respond to an advertisement by sending a
text message stating the user’s postcode and this action triggered the service. The user
would then receive a service text message which informed the user of: the service
44
name; the service cost; the 18 years old and over age restriction; instructions on use of
the ‘STOP’ command; company contact details; and the fact that the service was
provided by operators. The service text message also requested that the user send his
or her date of birth. The user then received a service text message which prompted the
user to send a multimedia picture message (MMS) so as to enable the service
moderator determine whether the user was over the age of 18.
Once the user began a text chat conversation with the operators, the service, depending
on the shortcode, had a cost range of between £1.50 and £2.00 per individual text
message received. In addition to these costs there was a charge of 25 pence per text
message sent by the user to the service shortcode.
It appeared that there was no specific or uniform ‘brand name’ for the service on these
shortcodes, however, each was run through the Service Provider’s platform and included
text chat of an explicit adult nature. The text chat service operators interacted with
consumers in chat messages until consumers sent the ‘STOP’ command.
The Executive formed the view that the service operated as a virtual chat service and
mirrored the actions of each individual participant to activate the services on all of the
respective shortcodes.
Complaint Investigation
Emergency Procedure
The Executive decided to investigate the service using the Emergency Procedure under
paragraph 8.6 of the Code. A Formal Emergency Procedure letter dated 15 May 2009
was issued to the Service Provider by the Executive alleging breaches of paragraphs
3.3.1, 5.3.1b, 5.4.1a, 5.14, 7.3.3a and 7.3.3b of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11th
Edition Amended April 2008) (‘the Code’) addressed. The Executive also issued formal
directions to the respective Mobile Network Operators (‘MNO’s’) to withhold revenue.
The Service Provider subsequently requested a review of the use of the Emergency
Procedure on 21 May 2009, and provided, in accordance with paragraph 8.6.3(b) of the
Code, reasons why it considered that the service should be allowed to continue
operating.
Having considered the Service Provider’s request for a review, a Tribunal agreed to
allow the virtual chat service to continue operating pending adjudication, subject to
specific conditions as were set out in a letter dated 22 May 2009 sent to the Service
Provider by the Executive. The Mobile Network Operators were informed of this decision
and were directed to continue to withhold revenue pending adjudication.
The Executive subsequently received the undertaking forms from the Information and
Service Provider (dated 22 May 2009 respectively) in relation to a joint request for
PhonepayPlus to deal directly with the Information Provider.
The Executive raised potential breaches of 5.4.1a, 7.3.3a and 7.3.3b of the Code against
the Information Provider in a letter dated 9 June 2009. The Information Provider
responded to the breach letter in a letter dated 16 June 2009.
To continue reading
Request your trial