Wild ACE Marketing Limited (Case reference: 01227)
| Case Number | 01227 |
| Year | 2012 |
| Published date | 01 March 2012 |
| Adjudicated Party | Wild ACE Marketing Limited |
| Procedure Type | Review (Phone-Paid Services Authority) |
THE CODE COMPLIANCE PANEL OF PHONEPAYPLUS
TRIBUNAL DECISION
Thursday 16 February 2012
TRIBUNAL SITTING No. 93 / CASE 1
CASE REFERENCE: 856050
Network operator: All mobile Network operators
Service Provider: mBlox Limited
Information Provider: WildACE Marketing Limited
THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE INFORMATION PROVIDER UNDER
PARAGRAPH 8.10 OF THE CODE
BACKGROUND
On 8 December 2011, the Tribunal heard a case for adjudication (the “Original Tribunal
Hearing”) against the Information Provider. This case was in relation to a service called
“MobyOffers” where several consumers had received an unsolicited (free) text message, to
which some had texted back “STOP” and incurred no charge, whereas others who did not
respond were later charged £1.50. The Tribunal found that the Information Provider had
deliberately provided false, inaccurate and misleading information to the Executive. The
Original Tribunal Hearing was heard in accordance with paragraph 8.7 of the PhonepayPlus
Code of Practice (11th edition, Amended April 2008) (the “Code”).
The Tribunal considered the breaches to be serious and issued the following sanctions:
• A Formal Reprimand;
• A fine of £9000; and
• A prohibition from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of premium rate
services for a period of six months (starting from the date of publication of the
decision) (the “Prohibition Sanction”).
On 21 December 2011 the Executive supplied the Information Provider with a copy of the
Tribunal’s decision, along with the invoices associated with a fine and administrative
charges.
Requests for Review
The decision was published on the PhonepayPlus website on 22 December 2011. On the
same day the Information Provider sent an application for review relating to the Prohibition
Sanction only and requested its immediate suspension.
On 5 January 2012 the Information Provider paid the fine sanction imposed during the
Original Tribunal Hearing.
The application for review was considered by the Chair of the Code Compliance Panel (the
“CCP”) on 22 December 2011 who rejected the application, stating that it was without merit.
The Executive was of the view that the rejection of the review application was as a
consequence of the fact that it had been hastily prepared and lacked substantive arguments
To continue reading
Request your trial