UK: Mal über den Zaun schauen...

[Aka-Aka]

Ein irreführend als "free" beworbener SMS-Dienst bekam vom britischen Regulierer 50.000 Pfund Strafe. Spannend sind dabei die Formulierungen.

“Services and promotional material must not: a) mislead, or be likely to mislead in any way…”
1. It was the opinion of the Executive that the service was misleading for the following reasons:

i) The use of the word free was misleading as consumers are required to join a subscription service at a cost of £1.50 per fortnight in order to receive a number of complimentary text messages.

ii) The pricing information was misleading as it was very difficult to understand; it was vague and only alluded to subscription charges. It also implied that the user may not be charged at all.

Hinsichtlich der Bezeichnung "free" argumentierte der Anbieter erfolglos, dies sei nur in den metatags der Seite verwendet worden

Using the word ‘free’ in relation to the service was misleading, even if it was used merely as a meta tag.

“Service providers must ensure that all users of premium rate services are fully informed, clearly and straightforwardly, of the cost of using a service prior to incurring any charge.”
1. It was the opinion of the Executive that the information supplied on the website regarding costs (as set out above in the background section) did not make it clear how much the user would be charged, especially as the service was advertised as being free. The information was vague and unhelpful and did not clearly and straightforwardly state the cost to the user.

“Users must be sent a free initial subscription message containing the following information before receiving the premium rate service:

a name of service,
b confirmation that the service is subscription-based,
c what the billing period is … or, if there is no applicable billing period, the frequency of messages being sent
d the charges for the service and how they will or can arise,
e how to leave the service,
f service provider contact details.”

1. After joining the service, the following free message was received: “FREEMSG Thank you for choosing to join the SMS community! Your Pin is xxxx. Use this to login to http/www.bubbletext.com”. As the information required by this paragraph of the Code was not provided, it was the opinion of the Executive that a breach had occurred.

Richtig spannend wird es dann bei der Bewertung der Vorgänge:

In determining the sanctions appropriate for the case the Panel took into account the following aggravating factors:
· The behaviour of the information provider was wilful in that it chose to use ‘free’ as a meta tag;
· Subscription services have been singled out for criticism by PhonepayPlus. The industry has been given guidance on how to operate services according to the Code;

und dann meine Lieblingsstelle: Als "erschwerender Faktor" galt demnach...

. The service provider’s breach history.

Jaja, liebe Wattestäbchenkrieger aus Meschede, ich übersetze es sogar
Als erschwerdender Faktor wurden vorangegangene Verstöße des Anbieters angesehen!

Es wurde sogar extra noch einmal wiederholt.

In coming to its decision on the level of fine to impose, the Panel was particularly concerned by the service provider’s breach history, noting that this was the fourth time within the past year that breaches had been upheld against this service provider.

Falls mal jemand einen Wattestäbchenkrieger spricht, sollte er so etwas mal vorstellen. Von einer Liste, in der die "Bösewichter" namentlich erwähnt werden, träume ich ja ohnehin seit Jahren