Simple clear advice in plain English

Phonepayplus imposes six-month ban on premium rate service marketing company

Wild ACE Marketing accused of charging people for unsolicted text messages

phonepayplus-website
Regulator said marketeer misled it

A marketing firm, which charged people for unsolicited text messages has been fined £9,000 by Phonepayplus and given a six month ban on using premium rate services (PRS).

The UK's PRS regulator said Wild ACE Marketing Ltd had given it false information, breached the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) and broken aspects of its Code of Practice.

Such was the concern that mBlox, Wild's PRS provider suspended the company's service. Phonepayplus said mBlox was worried that although Wild claimed to have obtained people's prior consent, it had not.

"The complainants in the Wild Ace case were sent a mixture of free and chargeable texts. The chargeable texts cost £1.50," Phonepayplus told us.

Under PECR organisations are not allowed to send unsolicted marketing emails or text messages. amounts to spam text messages. The Phonepayplus Code of Practice contains a rule that requires PRS providers and their promotional material to "comply with the law".

In a statement PhonepayPlus said: "The Tribunal found that the [seven] complainants had received unsolicited promotions from [Wild], and accordingly upheld a breach of [the Code's rules on legality].

"The Tribunal also upheld a breach of [the fairness rules] of the Code on one of two alleged grounds, on the basis that one of the messages received by consumers was misleading.

"The Tribunal further upheld a breach of [the provision of information rules] of the Code on the basis that [Wild] had provided [Phonepayplus] with false, inaccurate and misleading information in the course of the investigation of this matter.

"The Tribunal imposed the following sanctions: a formal reprimand, a fine of £9,000, and a prohibition on [Wild] from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of premium rate services for a period of six months."

We have asked Wild for comment.

Article tags

Reader Comments

   

Add your comment

All fields must be completed. Your email address will not be displayed or used to send marketing messages.

All messages will be checked by moderators before appearing on the site.

See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Related articles

cookies

Government websites may not comply with new cookie law

Cabinet Office admits many Government department websites will fail to comply with amendment to PECR

phonepayplus-website

Phonepayplus aids Police in fight against illegal downloads

Premium rate services regulator to work with City of London force and music industry

Information Commissioner's Office screenshot

The law change on internet cookies

Many cookies are benign but others are tracking cookies, which many users find intrusive. We explain the recent EU moves to clarify the law on the subject

Question & Answer

Q.Can I switch boot drives so that I can work on older...

> Read the answer

Q.Can I open my old genealogy files or have they gone...

> Read the answer

Q.Why are odd patterns appearing on my monitors shortly...

> Read the answer

Best deals on the web

img

Samsung RV520-A07

£356.50- Buy it now

img

Acer Aspire 5750G (LX.RXP02.019)

£399.99- Buy it now

img

Apple MacBook Pro (MD313B/A)

£904.37- Buy it now

Latest issue & subscription deals

Poll

Are you concerned about viruses that target mobile phones?

Jargon Buster

Computing terms explained in plain English

GIF

Grahics Interchange Format. A type of image file often used on the web, but now largely superseded by...

Great shopping deals from Computeractive