Premium rate text - 57052

compsys · 30-12-2010 2:46pm #1

Hi guys

Just got my bill from Vodafone and saw that on Sat 4th December and Sat 11th December two texts were seemingly sent from my phone to 57052 at a cost of €2 each. I checked back over my phone and saw that on both these dates I didn't make any texts at the specified time on the bill. In fact I've never sent a text to 57052. I have an iPhone and anyone who has the phone (or indeed any other smartphone) will know that it's very easy to check who you've sent messages to as you never really have to delete your inbox.

Anyway, I figured that it must be some type of premium rate service so I texted STOP to 57052 and received back the following message: Prizeclub.ie Stopped.

So I checked the website and found that it's some type of silly prize giving website where you're charged €4 a week for supposedly entering some type of competitions. My current bill only goes until 14th December so this means I'll have been charged for Sat 18th Dec and Sat 25th December as well in my next bill!

Anyway, I'm absolutely livid here as I'm not someone who would ever sign up for one of these stupid sites. Well, sign up knowingly at least. Plus, I really have better things to be spending my money on.

I do vaguely remember entering a TV3 X-Factor competition (on Nov 20th) to 50150 a while back but thought it was just one premium rate text for €2 approx as this is what was mentioned clearly on the screen. Could the sneaky terms and conditions have also signed me up for something else? The ad for the comp only flashed up for around 15 seconds so if they put the T&Cs about signing up for a premium rate service on to the end of the ad in small writing then I think that's a disgrace.

Anyway, it's not a huge amount of money and I caught the issue just about in time but I'm absolutely livid at the sneaky practices involved. Does anyone have any recommendation about who exactly I can complain to and how i.e. Vodafone, Prizeclub.ie, ComReg, TV3.

Has anyone had this happen to them before?

seamus · 30-12-2010 3:03pm

http://www.prizeclub.ie/xfactor/?sid=1725&bid=3&gclid=CI6A7eGPlKYCFQ1O4Qod00_DZw

Prizeclub.ie. One winner every 3 months. Max value €3000. Winner chooses from all prizes advertised. One FREE entry per mobile. Subscription service €4 per week. 18s+.SP InkRed 01 4888 999. To unsubscribe send stop to 50150. You may receive promotional messages, to opt out text stop to 57052. WAP required & data charges may apply. Closes March 31st 2011. Ts&Cs apply.

This was the competition I think that came up at most ad breaks?

Fairly typical promotion - it usually says, "Subscription service, €x per week, T & C apply" in tiny print at the bottom of the screen. Yes, it's a dishonest way of operating. The majority of their "subscribers" are under 18 with PAYG phones so they receive two messages a week and can't really track the €4 credit that's disappearing off their phone.

These messages will appear on your bill as premium texts - you're charged for receiving the texts, not sending them.

I don't think there's much you can do at this stage, though you can always make a complaint. The T's & C's were there (however small it was written).

Details are here:
http://www.askcomreg.ie/premium_rate/premium_rate_services.353.LE.asp

compsys · 30-12-2010 3:21pm

seamus wrote: »

http://www.prizeclub.ie/xfactor/?sid=1725&bid=3&gclid=CI6A7eGPlKYCFQ1O4Qod00_DZw

This was the competition I think that came up at most ad breaks?

Fairly typical promotion - it usually says, "Subscription service, €x per week, T & C apply" in tiny print at the bottom of the screen. Yes, it's a dishonest way of operating. The majority of their "subscribers" are under 18 with PAYG phones so they receive two messages a week and can't really track the €4 credit that's disappearing off their phone.

These messages will appear on your bill as premium texts - you're charged for receiving the texts, not sending them.

I don't think there's much you can do at this stage, though you can always make a complaint. The T's & C's were there (however small it was written).

Details are here:
http://www.askcomreg.ie/premium_rate/premium_rate_services.353.LE.asp

Thanks for the info.

I received absolutely no texts from the service provider however. It was only when I checked my phone bill that I saw that texts had supposedly been sent. I was merely charged without warning it would seem.

Also, the T&Cs you quote says send STOP to 50150 to unsubscribe. The number I'm being billed for is 57052. When I sent STOP to 50150 it merely said: You will no longer receive any marketing messages from us. You need to send STOP to 57052 to unsubscribe. So basically they've gotten it wrong on the screen.

TheDriver · 30-12-2010 3:25pm

lucky its not a massive amount they have taken, sneaky feckers

jor el · 30-12-2010 4:23pm

TheDriver wrote: »

sneaky feckers

Why? OP didn't read the terms of what they were entering, and signed up to a subscription service. How does one's own laziness translate to the operator being sneaky feckers?

I'm no fan of these premium services, but if you can't be bothered to read what you're subscribing to, then it's tough titty.

compsys · 30-12-2010 5:10pm

jor el wrote: »

Why? OP didn't read the terms of what they were entering, and signed up to a subscription service. How does one's own laziness translate to the operator being sneaky feckers?

I'm no fan of these premium services, but if you can't be bothered to read what you're subscribing to, then it's tough titty.

I 'signed up' to this company as a result of a TV advertisement. The so-called 'Terms and Conditions' must have been on screen for no more than 15 seconds, during which time I was concentrating on the number I had to text as opposed to reading a lengthy tiny paragraph at the bottom of the screen.

I think it's fair of me to be annoyed at what happened as it was rather sneaky practice. A lot of people would have been under the impression they were entering a competition and not a subscription service. This is what it was marketed as being. I didn't enter through the website that a previous poster posted. I did this as a result of a short TV advertisement asking me to enter a simple competition. Also, I never received any notifications or texts when my account was being debited. My understanding is that you're supposed to be re-entered into competitions each week by receiving questions and then answering them. At least this would have alerted me to that fact that I'd unwittingly subscribed to something. I received nothing however.

How dare you be so rude and obnoxious as to call me 'lazy'. You know absolutely nothing about me or who I am. If you've nothing constructive to say then why bother replying to these forums? I can't believe you're a moderator in here.

doleman2010 · 30-12-2010 8:10pm

From my experience the mods on this appear to side with the mobile operators and the companies involved in these operations .
Probably work in their call centres,
The consumer is always to blame according to them but I found out differently.

jor el · 31-12-2010 3:07am

compsys wrote: »

How dare you be so rude and obnoxious as to call me 'lazy'. You know absolutely nothing about me or who I am. If you've nothing constructive to say then why bother replying to these forums? I can't believe you're a moderator in here.

Did you read the T&Cs though, or did you even Google the company name to look for more details? You know there was a block of text there that you hadn't got time to read, so why didn't you try to find out what was in that text? I cannot believe that you didn't think it might contain some important information, or gotcha clauses. At the very least you should have been a little bit curious about it. If you couldn't be bothered to check the website, even after you received the bill (as seamus has done for you) to find out what was happening, then that is just lazy.

doleman2010 wrote:

From my experience the mods on this appear to side with the mobile operators and the companies involved in these operations .
Probably work in their call centres,
The consumer is always to blame according to them but I found out differently.

Care to back that statement up with some evidence there, doleman?

doleman2010 · 31-12-2010 11:14am

No problem Ive plenty of evidence , how about an executive from a mobile operator providing false opt in records to claim a subscriber had consented to a service, Ive a fantastic paper trail that shows what these people are ,scum.
when this subject was put on your forum some time ago i was attacked by the mods backing them up ,
This mobile operator was caught red handed stealing from the account of a deceased person and when challenged provided written evidence that the person had signed up for the service , this was later found to be totally false and malicious.
So dont get high and mighty defending them .the operator is based in Ireland and has been around for quite a long time ,

dudara · 31-12-2010 3:22pm

doleman2010 wrote: »

From my experience the mods on this appear to side with the mobile operators and the companies involved in these operations .
Probably work in their call centres,
The consumer is always to blame according to them but I found out differently.

@doleman - Please don't make wild statements that you can't substantiate

@compsys - Please keep emotion to one side. Attacking other posters is an easy way to find yourself taking a break from the forum.

I do agree with you that it wasn't very clear that these "Competitions" are in fact subscription services. It's easy to point this out after you've been burned. I think that these premium service operators are quite underhanded in their business practices and deliberately exploit people's naivety and goodwill. The messages they display may cover them from a legal perspective, but I do think that there should be more regulation about the size of these messages and the length of time for which they are displayed.

Cabaal · 31-12-2010 3:41pm

You said:

From my experience the mods on this appear to side with the mobile operators and the companies involved in these operations .
Probably work in their call centres,
The consumer is always to blame according to them but I found out differently.

jor el said

Care to back that statement up with some evidence there, doleman?

you ranted

doleman2010 wrote: »

No problem Ive plenty of evidence , how about an executive from a mobile operator providing false opt in records to claim a subscriber had consented to a service, Ive a fantastic paper trail that shows what these people are ,scum.
when this subject was put on your forum some time ago i was attacked by the mods backing them up ,
This mobile operator was caught red handed stealing from the account of a deceased person and when challenged provided written evidence that the person had signed up for the service , this was later found to be totally false and malicious.
So dont get high and mighty defending them .the operator is based in Ireland and has been around for quite a long time ,

So without actually answering jor el's question you spouted nonsense about an exec in some company in Ireland.

You didn't answer the question and you didn't provide evidence to backup your claim, as for your rant feel free to post this fantastic paper trail on-line to backup your claims otherwise your spouting meaningless nonsense.
:rolleyes:

Back to the OP's issue, the company in question provided the T&C's on the advert if you choose not to read them because you were busy reading a 5-6 digit number to text to then that's your issue I'm afraid, its certainly not the company's.

The provider like any company made its small print available to you and your failed to read it, they've done nothing wrong by displaying it for 15sec as most adverts are short anyway.

Many large companys will often have adverts with offers which also include small print, McDonalds for example and if people fail to read the info that's displayed then that's not the company's issue.

Personally I despise any of these premium text services but if the information is made available and at this stage they are around a number of years for most people to hear about them from comreg, radio shows like liveline and consumer shows/sections in papers then I'm afraid I can't pity people that fail to make themselves informed especially when they claim its illegal or something.

If however you feel you must complain then comreg is your best bet, see askcomreg.ie
Whilst they may not agree with you at least you'll be given straight up information.

compsys · 31-12-2010 3:56pm

jor el wrote: »

Did you read the T&Cs though, or did you even Google the company name to look for more details? You know there was a block of text there that you hadn't got time to read, so why didn't you try to find out what was in that text? I cannot believe that you didn't think it might contain some important information, or gotcha clauses. At the very least you should have been a little bit curious about it. If you couldn't be bothered to check the website, even after you received the bill (as seamus has done for you) to find out what was happening, then that is just lazy.

Care to back that statement up with some evidence there, doleman?

The whole tone of your language is downright rude. 'Lazy', 'couldn't be bothered' etc etc. And to think I came on here thinking I might get some constructive advice :rolleyes:

I find it amazing that you're implying that it's OK for companies to try get money from customers in bad faith because the customer didn't go looking hard enough for the 'gotcha clause' or some important information that was hidden away. Any important information in any contract should always be explained to the client in a clear, honest and upfront manner.

I'm guessing you think all those people who were mis-sold financial products and investments by banks and building societies over the years deserved it too as they were 'lazy' and 'couldn't be bothered' to read the small print? I'd love to see you say that to someone's face.

Once again, I find it bizarre that you're actually a modrator on here.

Please read my initial posts again before you call me 'lazy' and say I 'couldn't be bothered' doing anything or that I had to let Seamus do all the work. I'll outline my points:

1) I entered this competition through a TV advertisement
2) I did not enter this competition through a website
3) I was never directed to a website by any TV advertisement nor informed of one
4) The ad lasted around 15-20 seconds during which time I was understandably not trying to read a whole paragraph of tiny text at the bottom of a screen
5) The competition was marketed as a 'competition' and not some type of subscription service so I think I was in my right to think I was entering a one-off competition
6) One again, this whole issue of the website is irrelevant. I'm grateful that Seamus found the site and directed me towards it but it was not how I entered the 'competition'
7)
You said: At the very least you should have been a little bit curious about it. If you couldn't be bothered to check the website, even after you received the bill (as seamus has done for you) to find out what was happening, then that is just lazy.

The website is irrelevant as I entered through the TV ad. Also, as soon as my bill came in I spotted the premiums payments being debited from my account, I texted STOP to the number, I cancelled the service, I looked up the prize.ie website that was mentioned to investigate further (I can't call them as they're closed until January 4th), and I then posted here looking for constructive advice on how to proceed. It was only then that Seamus directed me towards the website. I think it's fair to say I wasn't lazy and that I took action as soon as I realised something was up.

compsys · 31-12-2010 3:59pm

dudara wrote: »

@doleman - Please don't make wild statements that you can't substantiate

@compsys - Please keep emotion to one side. Attacking other posters is an easy way to find yourself taking a break from the forum.

I do agree with you that it wasn't very clear that these "Competitions" are in fact subscription services. It's easy to point this out after you've been burned. I think that these premium service operators are quite underhanded in their business practices and deliberately exploit people's naivety and goodwill. The messages they display may cover them from a legal perspective, but I do think that there should be more regulation about the size of these messages and the length of time for which they are displayed.

Em, I'm not sure if that's what you'd call 'attacking' someone.

Also, if the moderator doesn't want to be 'attacked', perhaps he shouldn't be so rude as to call someone 'lazy'.

Anyway, thank you for your feedback and thoughts above. I accept what you're saying. That's what I'd call constructive feedback and constructive information.

whiterebel · 31-12-2010 4:23pm

compsys wrote: »

The whole tone of your language is downright rude. 'Lazy', 'couldn't be bothered' etc etc. And to think I came on here thinking I might get some constructive advice :rolleyes:

I find it amazing that you're implying that it's OK for companies to try get money from customers in bad faith because the customer didn't go looking hard enough for the 'gotcha clause' or some important information that was hidden away. Any important information in any contract should always be explained to the client in a clear, honest and upfront manner.

I'm guessing you think all those people who were mis-sold financial products and investments by banks and building societies over the years deserved it too as they were 'lazy' and 'couldn't be bothered' to read the small print? I'd love to see you say that to someone's face.

Once again, I find it bizarre that you're actually a modrator on here.

Please read my initial posts again before you call me 'lazy' and say I 'couldn't be bothered' doing anything or that I had to let Seamus do all the work. I'll outline my points:

1) I entered this competition through a TV advertisement
2) I did not enter this competition through a website
3) I was never directed to a website by any TV advertisement nor informed of one
4) The ad lasted around 15-20 seconds during which time I was understandably not trying to read a whole paragraph of tiny text at the bottom of a screen
5) The competition was marketed as a 'competition' and not some type of subscription service so I think I was in my right to think I was entering a one-off competition
6) One again, this whole issue of the website is irrelevant. I'm grateful that Seamus found the site and directed me towards it but it was not how I entered the 'competition'
7)
You said: At the very least you should have been a little bit curious about it. If you couldn't be bothered to check the website, even after you received the bill (as seamus has done for you) to find out what was happening, then that is just lazy.

The website is irrelevant as I entered through the TV ad. Also, as soon as my bill came in I spotted the premiums payments being debited from my account, I texted STOP to the number, I cancelled the service, I looked up the prize.ie website that was mentioned to investigate further (I can't call them as they're closed until January 4th), and I then posted here looking for constructive advice on how to proceed. It was only then that Seamus directed me towards the website. I think it's fair to say I wasn't lazy and that I took action as soon as I realised something was up.

My mother got caught up with that bloody shower Inkred before. they have to be the sneakiest scum out there. I can't believe there are mods here defending their T&Cs when in fact they seem to operate in a very underhanded manner i.e. getting mobile numbers from people who have entered totally separate competitions and then getting a quick €4-6 off them before they realise. They certainly didn't make it clear in my mother's case how to get it to stop, because you couldn't text STOP to the number. RegTel as it turned out were the ones to get it stopped.

krudler · 31-12-2010 6:12pm

I find it amazing that you're implying that it's OK for companies to try get money from customers in bad faith because the customer didn't go looking hard enough for the 'gotcha clause' or some important information that was hidden away. Any important information in any contract should always be explained to the client in a clear, honest and upfront manner.

You mean like written in front of you on the tv screen?

got this all the time working in the phone industry "sure who reads contracts?" being the main one.

Dont all these ads now tell you as well that it involved a subscription? as in the voiceover on the ad, I think there was something brought in where they had to aurally tell the viewer as well, I dont have any tv channels so couldnt tell ya though havent seen one in over a year.

dudara · 31-12-2010 6:16pm

compsys wrote: »

Em, I'm not sure if that's what you'd call 'attacking' someone.

Also, if the moderator doesn't want to be 'attacked', perhaps he shouldn't be so rude as to call someone 'lazy'.

Anyway, thank you for your feedback and thoughts above. I accept what you're saying. That's what I'd call constructive feedback and constructive information.

I really do strongly advise you to desist from your comments on jor el. His post does reflect the thoughts of a lot of our readers. I do tend to agree with him, in the sense that the perils of these competitions have been well publicised for many years now.

When posting on the Internet, you have to accept that not everyone's opinion will be in accord with your own. You have to learn to deal with contrary opinions.

If you have any problems with any posts in this thread, please use the Report Post functionality. I do not want to see any more of this off-topic discussion.

Exclamation Marc · 31-12-2010 6:53pm

Very annoying yes, illegal/scam no.

Everyone gets burnt by something like this eventually. And whilst it may defined as being "sneaky", the writing and text is legible its just very small. But nothing is happening that is not forewarned on the ad itself.

Always read the small print, anyone will tell you that. It sucks that you were caught out by it, but ALWAYS read the small print.

Zab · 31-12-2010 7:00pm

I'm not big into nanny state type laws although obviously people should be afforded some degree of protection from the less scrupulous among us.

I assume that we all agree that the only reason companies like this make money is because people don't understand what they're signing up to for whatever reason, and furthermore that they know this and feed off of it. If everybody understood the conditions then they wouldn't exist. I consider these companies to be totally shady, and I would not have dealings with them. However, even if we accept their existence on freedom of contract type grounds (and I'm not sure that I do), I see no reason to forgive the phone companies and TV channels from blatantly profiteering at the expense of their unwitting customers by advertising or enabling these companies for a fee.

compsys · 31-12-2010 7:35pm

krudler wrote: »

You mean like written in front of you on the tv screen?

got this all the time working in the phone industry "sure who reads contracts?" being the main one.

Dont all these ads now tell you as well that it involved a subscription? as in the voiceover on the ad, I think there was something brought in where they had to aurally tell the viewer as well, I dont have any tv channels so couldnt tell ya though havent seen one in over a year.

1) The ad had no voiceover alerting anyone to the fact that it was a 'subscription' as opposed to a once-off competition where you get charged for the one text you use to enter.
2) Yep, I didn't read the small print on the TV screen...so shoot me. However, bear in mind that the T&Cs were in tiny writing at the bottom of the screen and almost impossible to read clearly and easily and that the ad itself lasted only 15-20 seconds or so.

Finally, I've entered dozens of competitions before where this type of thing doesn't happen. The Late Late Show competitions are a good example. You text in your answer to a premium rate number and you get charged €2 or so for the one text you use to enter. Sometimes you might have to answer a second question so you get charged again. However, it's all reasonably above board and every time you text the premium rate number you just get charged for that one text you send. I only texted in once and suddenly I was being charged for texts I didn't send.

If I'd kept on receiving texts from the competition runners then maybe I would have realised something was up and that I'd unwittingly signed up for an additional service. But I never received anything else from Inkred. They just debited money from my account each week.

I'm sorry but I do believe that sneakily signing people up for extra services after they've entered one single competition is wrong. There's a moral point to this as well which no one seems to be looking at. Inkred are obviously out to confuse people and rip people off. If they weren't, then why not make it nice and clear, in nice big writing exactly how much you're going to be charged and what exactly you're signing up for?

padocon · 01-01-2011 2:54am

Someone I know had a similar problem. They contacted ComReg who investigated the case. It turned out that they signed up by accident. But thats tough luck. However in ComReg's investigation they found that the subscription company failed to send the text message to say "you are subscribed to xyz text stop etc" once or twice. By law they have to send this after the subscription company takes a certain amount of money. The consumer got a partial refund.

OP it is worth looking into. They may have slipped up.

axer · 01-01-2011 2:25pm

OP, follow up with the company and give out stink (at least out of principal) - comreg will not do anything - they will point you to the organisation that self-regulates the industry (who are a complete joke) and also your mobile operator will wash their hands off of it as they make a nice cut out of the premium text messaging scam.

The premium rate company will most likely just refund you since they do not want their industry regulated (its a self-regulated joke at the moment). Something similiar happened to me where it cost me 8 euro on my vodafone bill and I asked them for proof that I had subscribed - they couldnt provide it but sent me a 10 euro note in the post. Lol I made 2 euro profit out of complaining and demanding a refund.

compsys · 01-01-2011 4:57pm

Cheers guys. Will think about it. To be honest I don't care if I don't receive a refund. It's just the principle of the thing that annoys me. Am definitely going to ring Inkred when they reopen after the holidays though and hear what they have to say.

padocon · 02-01-2011 12:30am

Good advice from axer, first step ask them the date time and method of sign up. Then contact vodafone or your provider to confirm its true.

02-01-2011 11:34am

Many people know these comps are money making scams - but we have to realise that they use professional marketing companies and skirt the advertising rules to the edge.

The so called T&C's on the screen cannot be read by anyone who is of normal sight sitting at the recommended distance from the tv, the number of words are also greater than the normal reading time of 2 words per second and finally, the voice over rarely mentions that it si a subscription service but does shout that its a free text or similar.

There needs to be strict advertising conditions laid down for these scams - it has to be clearly audible that it is a subscription service and the weekly cost continues until you say stop.

Rover09 · 03-01-2011 9:33am

I had this problem a couple of years ago. I complained to Com Reg and eventually got a cheque from the Data Protection Commissioner's Office after they had extracted it from the premium rate operator who had been "subscribing" people randomly.

Whether it is random "subscribing" or misleading small print, I feel it is always worth complaining to the agencies, as this kind of operator should just have their licences removed for misbehaviour.

I feel Vodafone is particularly to blame, as you cannot track your own pre-paid activity on their website, while Meteor and Tesco do provide this service. However I suppose the phone companies benefit from this kind of abuse.

At least the public agencies now do more advertising, telling people to text STOP, which is a big step forward. It sounds as if they need to do some more of this, possibly requiring each "premium subscription" text message to include instructions on how to unsubscribe, which is after all normal in the case of respectable unsolicited emails.

BurnsCarpenter · 03-01-2011 3:22pm

axer wrote: »

OP, follow up with the company and give out stink (at least out of principal) - comreg will not do anything - they will point you to the organisation that self-regulates the industry (who are a complete joke) and also your mobile operator will wash their hands off of it as they make a nice cut out of the premium text messaging scam.

The premium rate company will most likely just refund you since they do not want their industry regulated (its a self-regulated joke at the moment). Something similiar happened to me where it cost me 8 euro on my vodafone bill and I asked them for proof that I had subscribed - they couldnt provide it but sent me a 10 euro note in the post. Lol I made 2 euro profit out of complaining and demanding a refund.

Regtel is the industry regulator you mention - they don't exist anymore. It is now comreg's responsibility.

03-01-2011 4:21pm

according to news today, premium lines were the most complained about to comreg and new rules will be introduced so that the customer will have to confirm that they want to subscribe to the weekly fees.

compsys · 03-01-2011 8:14pm

91011 wrote: »

according to news today, premium lines were the most complained about to comreg and new rules will be introduced so that the customer will have to confirm that they want to subscribe to the weekly fees.

Sounds like a good idea and not a moment too soon. Anyway, thanks for all the help and constructive advice. Sure beats being called 'lazy' :rolleyes:

doleman2010 · 03-01-2011 10:22pm

Hopefully things will change for the better with comreg having taken over regtels function , one thing to be wary of though some of the staff from regtel have been assimilated into comreg , let see if the old attidutes remain.
The biggest problem here is the the network operators see the premium services as major cash cow , as their take is usually 40-50 % of the call cost plus they have the money first and then divy it up to the various parties .
They seem to have little or no interest in solving or looking at customer complaints in this area, they are the major offender when it comes to transparency.
I had a serious issue with a network here , where a deceased relatives account was stolen from by them . Regtel and the network 02 would do nothing to look into the matter . An 02 exec working in the premium wholesale area even provided false opt in records to try to thwart the matter,
There is a massive amount of money at stake here for these guys and they do not like to be caught out.

wailim_2002 · 06-12-2011 1:23pm

seamus wrote: »

Fairly typical promotion - it usually says, "Subscription service, €x per week, T & C apply" in tiny print at the bottom of the screen. Yes, it's a dishonest way of operating. The majority of their "subscribers" are under 18 with PAYG phones so they receive two messages a week and can't really track the €4 credit that's disappearing off their phone.

I know this thread is quite old, but my parents have both recently been caught in this manner.

I would point out that a common missing piece of information or 'bluster' [in the online ads at least] is it is never clear you are actually subscribing.

There are always 2 activities.. one is the immediate competition at hand and the other is the subscription service. However it never says click continue to subscribe. In fact nothing in the fine print ever makes the link between the competition at hand and the subscription service.

IMO given the more substantial cost incurred by those who fall victim is the subscription, then ads are misleading unless they say click continue to subscribe or else text XXYYY to subscribe.

I mean its clearer isn't it? Its honest too. It is a subscription after all and if its a good and honest one that will not deter people. At least in the case of a TV commercial [which IMO is totally unsuitable for that type of ad], the phrases:

"Text your answer to XXYYY to subscribe"
"Text to subscribe"

..would alert people who understandably do not have time to read the T&Cs.

I wonder how many victims would have thought twice if the adverts were clear that you are actually subscribing!

Note also: One of the Regulators requirements is that the ads are clear.

I argue they are unclear for the above reason only.

compsys · 21-01-2012 7:21pm

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/customers-hit-with-huge-bills-for-unwanted-phone-services-2995911.html

Looks like Inkred and their Prizeclub 'service' was the most complained about company to ComReg last year. Am hardly surprised. I obviously wasn't the only person caught out by their dodgy practices.

Solair · 21-01-2012 10:34pm

jor el wrote: »

Why? OP didn't read the terms of what they were entering, and signed up to a subscription service. How does one's own laziness translate to the operator being sneaky feckers?

I'm no fan of these premium services, but if you can't be bothered to read what you're subscribing to, then it's tough titty.

I absolutely do not agree with you on that one.

This seems to happen way too often to unsuspecting consumers and I don't think it's 'tough titty' nor do I think the OP was 'lazy'.

The operator should be required to make a CLEAR verbal announcement saying accompanied by an on screen message in a large font saying : "This is a subscription service. We will debit XX.XX Euro from your mobile phone account or add it to your bill every week/month if you subscribe to this service"

Instead, they display a little message on the screen which is difficult to read and very unclear.

I think the regulation of premium text messaging services in Ireland is still completely consumer-unfriendly and needs to be tightened up significantly.

Something is seriously wrong when lots of people are ending up in this situation without being aware that they subscribed to a service.

NewHillel · 22-01-2012 1:30am

jor el wrote: »

Why? OP didn't read the terms of what they were entering, and signed up to a subscription service. How does one's own laziness translate to the operator being sneaky feckers?

I'm no fan of these premium services, but if you can't be bothered to read what you're subscribing to, then it's tough titty.

Suggesting laziness is quite a leap. Where does the 'Comment on the post not the poster', come in?

Not only are the T&C's made as inconspicuous as possible, many of the ads are targeted at children. My daughter signed up, and the only way we stopped the 'subscription' was by changing her number. The ad was in a tonnage mag and the conditions were tiny. (Admittedly that was a few years ago and hat element may have changed.)

compsys · 22-01-2012 3:47am

NewHillel wrote: »

Suggesting laziness is quite a leap. Where does the 'Comment on the post not the poster', come in?

Not only are the T&C's made as inconspicuous as possible, many of the ads are targeted at children. My daughter signed up, and the only way we stopped the 'subscription' was by changing her number. The ad was in a tonnage mag and the conditions were tiny. (Admittedly that was a few years ago and hat element may have changed.)

If you read most of jor el's posts you'll find this type of comment quite common for him. He always seems to take the side of the business. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that the customer is always right but for him to imply that I'm lazy was unwarranted I think.

Anyway, I'm glad Comreg seemed to agree with what I was saying!

jor el · 23-01-2012 12:21pm

compsys wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that the customer is always right but for him to imply that I'm lazy was unwarranted I think.

You might want to start with reading your own posts first. Your opening post states that you "vaguely remember entering a TV3 X-Factor competition", and that you knew there were T&Cs attached to it. So you willingly entered a premium rate competition, that you knew had T&Cs, yet you didn't check out what might be in those. How would you describe such inaction by yourself?

If you read my post anyway you'd see I was quoting another poster that called the companies "sneaky feckers", without actually following that up with any fact or backing. One party's unwillingness to read the T&Cs they were clearly aware of does not make the other party sneaky for having those T&Cs.

compsys wrote: »

Anyway, I'm glad Comreg seemed to agree with what I was saying!

Did you even read the article you linked to? Where does it state that Comreg agree with you? It says quite clearly that Comreg received complaints, and that it was not going to discuss the detail of those complaints or the outcome. It mentions nothing about the complaints being upheld, or any sanctions or warnings being given to the companies in question. It also makes no mention of lack of clarity in their advertising.

Dodge · 23-01-2012 12:50pm

jor el wrote: »

Did you even read the article you linked to?

Sure why woud he/she, they're clearly laz...

Too easy?

dudara · 23-01-2012 4:45pm

Posters - that's enough back and forth. Stick to the OT.

dudara

cast_iron · 23-01-2012 5:15pm

jor el wrote: »

You might want to start with reading your own posts first. Your opening post states that you "vaguely remember entering a TV3 X-Factor competition", and that you knew there were T&Cs attached to it. So you willingly entered a premium rate competition, that you knew had T&Cs, yet you didn't check out what might be in those. How would you describe such inaction by yourself?

You're probably right on a technicality. But that doesn't mean it's fair.
The idea of these premium text services is that they are convenient to enter, and hence people sign up quite easily, without necessarily knowing the exact t and c's. If everyone was supposed to go off and read the fine print online/wherever, who would be bothered?
Saying "it's all there in fine print" isn't good enough. People should be given a clear warning of what and how often they will be charged when signing up.

jor el · 23-01-2012 6:04pm

cast_iron wrote: »

Saying "it's all there in fine print" isn't good enough. People should be given a clear warning of what and how often they will be charged when signing up.

I simply don't accept that. Terms and Conditions Apply is a standard warning used on just about every product or service we buy and use. It is there to let you know that there is more to what you're signing up to than is initially obvious. Adults should not need any more hand holding over such a simple thing.

cast_iron · 23-01-2012 6:31pm

jor el wrote: »

I simply don't accept that. Terms and Conditions Apply is a standard warning used on just about every product or service we buy and use. It is there to let you know that there is more to what you're signing up to than is initially obvious. Adults should not need any more hand holding over such a simple thing.

Yes. And most services you sign up for are pretty transparent about what you get, and the small sticky fine print are for the rarer cases of use.

However, there is an obligation on companies to provide clear information as to what the product will cost.
A bank can't sign you up for a loan and just say "read the 10 pages of terms and conditions since you're an adult". They are obliged to tell you what the entire cost will be and what may affect changes in the money owed.

According to your argument, they should not have to do this since we are all adults?

compsys · 23-01-2012 8:20pm

jor el wrote: »

You might want to start with reading your own posts first. Your opening post states that you "vaguely remember entering a TV3 X-Factor competition", and that you knew there were T&Cs attached to it. So you willingly entered a premium rate competition, that you knew had T&Cs, yet you didn't check out what might be in those. How would you describe such inaction by yourself?

My post says the following:

I do vaguely remember entering a TV3 X-Factor competition (on Nov 20th) to 50150 a while back but thought it was just one premium rate text for €2 approx as this is what was mentioned clearly on the screen. Could the sneaky terms and conditions have also signed me up for something else? The ad for the comp only flashed up for around 15 seconds so if they put the T&Cs about signing up for a premium rate service on to the end of the ad in small writing then I think that's a disgrace.

Just because I 'vaguely' remember doing something why does that suggest that I'm lazy? What do you know about me or my life that makes you think you can insult me, or anyone else, by calling me lazy? I think you should stick to the facts and the topic. If you don't agree with my point that's OK. But please don't be rude.

Also, my post never said I expressly knew that there were T&Cs. As I said, the ad only flashed up for about 15 seconds so I didn't see/read any T&Cs. I stated that I sent a text to the relevant number and 'thought it was just one premium rate text for €2 approx as this is what was mentioned clearly on the screen'.

So it's totally incorrect for you to imply that I knew full well that there were loads of T&Cs attached to the competition and that I was simply just too lazy to read them and wasn't bothered.

BurnsCarpenter · 26-01-2012 10:24pm

I had a Prize Club pop-up on youtube yesterday trying to give the impression it was an official user survey (same style and font as youtube). Have seen similar on facebook.

Terms and conditions in place of course (having completed the "survey"), but typical of the misleading practice that goes on. "Sneaky feckers" seems a reasonable assessment to me.

I'm all for personal responsibility but I don't think having terms and conditions on display should amount to a free pass for this kind of deception.

Solair · 27-01-2012 1:52pm

I don't really see why we are having these kinds of problems with these services. The first thing you learn about contract law is that both parties must actually be aware of the existence of a contract before they can enter into it. If the customer doesn't know that the contract exists then how can they have signed up to it?

Imagine if you went to your supermarket and paid for your groceries with your laser card and they had a sign saying "Terms and Conditions Apply" and some minute sign under the counter explaining that it was a subscription service that entered you into a raffle each week.

Now imagine a few weeks later, you discover the supermarket has taken a tenner out of your current account every week.

You'd be fuming mad and getting onto your bank seeking immediate charge backs! It'd be all over the papers if it was happening to lots of people and you can be sure it would be investigated.

I don't see why a different standard applies to premium text services.

Dodge · 27-01-2012 2:51pm

Its not really a tiny sign though. I've seen them clearly plenty of times and my eyesight isn't perfect.

Its not as big as the headline banner, but thats not the point. Using your tesco analogy, they often have "BUY ONE GET ONE FREE" or "50% off" headlines everywhere, but its only when you check it, you'll find out the small range of goods.

compsys · 27-01-2012 7:28pm

Dodge wrote: »

Its not really a tiny sign though. I've seen them clearly plenty of times and my eyesight isn't perfect.

Its not as big as the headline banner, but thats not the point. Using your tesco analogy, they often have "BUY ONE GET ONE FREE" or "50% off" headlines everywhere, but its only when you check it, you'll find out the small range of goods.

It's hardly a huge sign either though Dodge.

Any terms and conditions should always be appropriate to the median through which the product or 'service' is offered.

If you're watching TV on your couch, usually around 3/4 foot away from the TV, and an ad comes on for only 15 seconds, and in tiny writing at the bottom of the screen there's a list of T&Cs that you can barely see, I don't personally think that's fair or appropriate. Sure you spend the whole ad looking at the question and writing down the number.

I mean, why not have a very quick but clear voice over on the ad saying something like: Terms and conditions apply. If you enter this competition you'll also be signed up for a premium rate text competition service?

Frankie Teardrop · 30-01-2012 12:38pm

Just found out that I've been scammed by this too.

To confirm I have not signed up to any ad that I'm aware of, does anyone know of any other method they are using to get subscriptions, something sneaky in an iPhone app maybe?

doleman2010 · 31-01-2012 11:07pm

No you dont have to sign up for these services that take money from you, the scammers can do what they want in this country as long as they share the booty with certain network providers. comreg turn a blind eye most of the time anyway.
Ask your network provider to supply you with the call logs for the alleged sign up process, after all they are the ones that are taking your money and passing some of it on to THEIR associates.
If they cannot or will not provide an accurate and verifiable paper trail of the opt in process it is then their problem not yours , report them for fraud or theft on you account.
I spent almost a year dealing with one network that took money from a recently deceased persons account on the basis that they opted in for a service , they even went as far as to supply altered and false documents to try to get out of it.
Some very Nasty people in that business.

Frankie Teardrop · 01-02-2012 12:50pm

ok, so rather than spend a whole lot of time chasing this down I'm going to leave it...so yes the scammers have won this time.
d

doleman2010 · 01-02-2012 4:04pm

Leave it if you want , but if everyone adopts the same attitute these scammers and the mobile networks are the winners , I took this shower of scum on on a matter of principle , yes it took time and effort but in the end I did recieve a cheque from them and an apology from the CEO of the network here.
All the evidence they had of the alleged opt-in was totally false.
So if you are 100% sure that neither you or somebody belonging to you did not opt in to the scam, go for it.
If you are not, dont bother.they will make a fool out of you.

Frankie Teardrop · 02-02-2012 12:49pm

hmmm...
it costs 15 euro for a small claim, I'll check with 02 and find out how much I've been charged so far...I'll post what ever I do here.

doleman2010 · 02-02-2012 8:29pm

Very interesting that you should mention the name of that network provider , you may find that they will not be inclined to be of any help to you.
If you can prove that you did NOT opt in for the sevice I wouldnt bother with the small claims court , you may be better off going to the Gardai and let them deal with them.

Premium rate text - 57052

Comments