Premium SMS problem - Can you be subscribed without texting?

Solair

A relative of mine, who is well into middle age and has absolutely no interest in premium SMS services was checking through her mobile bill and discovered large numbers of charges from a 57XXX number (2 per week amounting to over 6 euro / week) going back for several months.

She has absolutely no recollection of having ever subscribed to the service and there are no incoming texts on her phone matching the dates on her bill. She never deletes SMS messages (android phone, huge memory no need to).

Could she have been subscribed without permission e.g. via a website?

Why would she not be receiving the SMS messages that seem to be being charged to her phone?

The whole system seems like a complete and utter joke that's wide open to abuse.

Any ideas?

wmpdd3

Could she have entered a comp?

cookie1977

Has she a smart phone? Some ads on the browser or apps of smartphones when clicked have the ability to access you number and sign you up. New Comreg rules governing PRS should stop that when they come in in June of this year but in the meantime go to:
www.phonesmart.ie

identify the offending company using the number they're texting your relative from and make a formal complaint to them asking how you were signed up. If you dont get satisfaction then complain to comreg at the same website.

Also text:
Stop

to the number she's been getting the texts from to stop more charges

The Corinthian

Technically speaking you could be subscribed without having made a request, but I very much doubt this. Other than the hassle from the regulator, subscribing a number from a list is a very hit and miss affair as enough of the numbers would already be out of date and deactivated by the time the subscription is activated and this would most likely be flagged at the operator - even more hassle.

Honestly, in my experience, when someone claims that they have "absolutely no recollection", you'll almost always find that they did at some stage. Maybe they've forgotten, maybe they're too embarrassed to admit it or maybe they didn't fully realize it when they did so at the time.

If you call the service provider you can get them to trace back exactly when they did so for you. You can demand a refund also and you'll most likely get it.

Solair

We discovered that yeah she did text into a competition before Xmas but, she had absolutely no idea that it was a subscription service that would take X per week.

Who in their right mind would think that a "text blah blah to win" competition would be a subscription service. It is not intuitively logical. I mean, you don't buy a raffle ticket to discover they have signed you up to direct debit without your consent and are taking €4 / week or whatever.

From what I can see these "services" are nothing but scams that are counting on people not to see the small print.

I would doubt that they would be able to prove the existence of a contract in court either as you cannot enter a contract without being aware of the existence of said contract.

Another example of Irish regulation being in favour of screwing the general public!

There could be vast amounts of money being leeched out of mobile phone accounts without people even noticing it i.e. if you're on bill pay, with a large bill (as this person is) you don't necessarily forensically analyse your statements every month and a "Premium SMS" charge will go unnoticed buried in a vast list of calls and texts.

cookie1977

Solair wrote: »

We discovered that yeah she did text into a competition before Xmas but, she had absolutely no idea that it was a subscription service that would take X per week.

Who in their right mind would think that a "text blah blah to win" competition would be a subscription service. It is not intuitively logical. I mean, you don't buy a raffle ticket to discover they have signed you up to direct debit without your consent and are taking €4 / week or whatever.

From what I can see these "services" are nothing but scams that are counting on people not to see the small print.

I would doubt that they would be able to prove the existence of a contract in court either as you cannot enter a contract without being aware of the existence of said contract.

Another example of Irish regulation being in favour of screwing the general public!

That's why the new rules will stop this. Comreg will now require PRS services to confirm the subscription (as linked to above). So if you enter a competition which is also a subscription based service you will then receive another text asking you to confirm your agreement to the subscription. This is as a result of Comreg discussions with the public and the industry.

The Corinthian

Solair wrote: »

Who in their right mind would think that a "text blah blah to win" competition would be a subscription service. It is not intuitively logical.

Depends what you've read, or more correctly how closely.

In reality people don't bother reading what's written - and I don't mean legalistic small print, but often if it is longer than 100 words. I came across an interesting app for Android a while back which claims in the first few lines to "charge your phone with the power of the sun! Start this application, put your phone in a well lit place and watch your battery charge using the solar panel."

Of course, if you read down to the end, it will clearly admit that this is all nonsense and the app author only published the app "to collect the mentally challenged trolls - who never read the description this far - complaining about every app." Five million installs.

This is not to suggest that the PSMS service providers are not often trying to lure and mislead people into subscribing to such services. However, they don't need to use tiny, small print, complex legalistic language or blatant falsehoods; all they need do is rely upon the laziness of consumers to bother reading even the large, let alone the small, print. And I'll have to be honest when I say that I don't have a huge amount of sympathy when someone is caught out as a result of their own indolence.

cookie1977 wrote: »

That's why the new rules will stop this. Comreg will now require PRS services to confirm the subscription (as linked to above). So if you enter a competition which is also a subscription based service you will then receive another text asking you to confirm your agreement to the subscription. This is as a result of Comreg discussions with the public and the industry.

I remember seeing the stats on this double-opt-in approach with Verizon in the US and it really does decimate PSMS subscriptions.

Of course, the Devil's in the detail and there are often ways to avoid or minimize drop-offs; certainly there were with Verizon. Depends on whether there was anyone who knew his/her stuff on the regulator side of the table (or the other side, for that matter) during consultations.

cookie1977

Well regulations are only as good as the regulators who enforce them and the customers who call upon them.

The Corinthian

cookie1977 wrote: »

Well regulations are only as good as the regulators who enforce them and the customers who call upon them.

Partly. They're also only as good as how they have been thought through. A poorly envisaged or designed regulation is as useless as no regulation.

cookie1977

The opt in process comreg's decided on seems very good to me. I dont see how they could by-pass it. Certainly when you read the consultation reports and see how vehemently the PRS companies were asking for it not to be implemented as it could decimate the industry or damage the user "experience" you cant help but wring a little smile

Modeva similarly contended that most of its PRS are ISS and the revised draft Code would result in the demise of the PRS industry in Ireland and the associated tax revenue and employment when demand for PRS would be satisfied by PRS providers operating from outside Ireland.

Several respondents highlighted that requiring end-users to send an SMS to confirm their unambiguous consent to subscribe would damage the “user experience” as the end-user would have to exit from a web session to send the SMS and subsequently open a new web-session to continue engaging with the PRS.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg1228.pdf

The Corinthian

cookie1977 wrote: »

The opt in process comreg's decided on seems very good to me. I dont see how they could by-pass it.

I don't know the details of what was agreed, but can say that I have seen the double opt-in (it's not actually a single opt-in) system effectively bypassed in the US; that's why I said the Devil's in the detail.

Damaging 'user experience' is a valid point, in that it forces the user to opt-in twice and most will not bother - usability is all to often about making things easy for lazy users. This is why it will decimate subscriptions (I can't remember the exact figures, but we're talking around 90% fall-off).

If it has been effectively designed then my guess is that it will spell the death knell of some of the smaller PSMS companies that do most or all of their business in Ireland. For the larger ones, the Irish market accounts for a tiny fraction of their volume.

cookie1977

To be honest there is a percentage of people out there who are happy to pay for PRS services and who willing enter into the agreement. The PRS companies will have to learn to survive on that group rather than on beguiling people into paying for their existance.

How was the double opt out circumvented in the US?

The Corinthian

cookie1977 wrote: »

To be honest there is a percentage of people out there who are happy to pay for PRS services and who willing enter into the agreement. The PRS companies will have to learn to survive on that group rather than on beguiling people into paying for their existance.

That percentage would be too low to sustain most of these PRS companies.

You have to remember that PSMS only took off when the subscription model was introduced, prior to that it actually didn't make much money at all, especially if you consider the costs of hooking a number up (and monthly rental of said connection) are, not to mention how much the operators scalp from the revenue.

Given this, I don't have that much sympathy for that industry as much of it relies on people forgetting to subscribe from services, than bringing any real value for money (which given how much the operators take is, would be difficult, if not impossible). That's not to say that they're all bad, of course.

Personally, I think it's a dying business model; squeezed by regulation on one side and the app-stores on the other and unless these firms evolve drastically, most will be gone in the next few years.

How was the double opt out circumvented in the US?

That's knowledge that I would not be willing to impart gratis

cookie1977

Well if you're talking of cell phone cramming that's a whole other story. I mean we're only talking here of "legitamate" charges (albeit not necessarily well understood charges).

Solair

The Corinthian wrote: »

Depends what you've read, or more correctly how closely.

In reality people don't bother reading what's written - and I don't mean legalistic small print, but often if it is longer than 100 words. I came across an interesting app for Android a while back which claims in the first few lines to "charge your phone with the power of the sun! Start this application, put your phone in a well lit place and watch your battery charge using the solar panel."

Of course, if you read down to the end, it will clearly admit that this is all nonsense and the app author only published the app "to collect the mentally challenged trolls - who never read the description this far - complaining about every app." Five million installs.

This is not to suggest that the PSMS service providers are not often trying to lure and mislead people into subscribing to such services. However, they don't need to use tiny, small print, complex legalistic language or blatant falsehoods; all they need do is rely upon the laziness of consumers to bother reading even the large, let alone the small, print. And I'll have to be honest when I say that I don't have a huge amount of sympathy when someone is caught out as a result of their own indolence.

I remember seeing the stats on this double-opt-in approach with Verizon in the US and it really does decimate PSMS subscriptions.

Of course, the Devil's in the detail and there are often ways to avoid or minimize drop-offs; certainly there were with Verizon. Depends on whether there was anyone who knew his/her stuff on the regulator side of the table (or the other side, for that matter) during consultations.

I really do not see it as any different from sticking a tiny message on a chip and pin credit card terminal saying "By entering your pin you are entering a subscription agreement where by you will be debited for the cost of this dinner every week in perpetuity until you text Stop to 99999"

It would seem to me that a LOT of people are ending up subscribed to "services" they never intended to be without their explicit consent.

If a person is totally unaware of a contract, then the contract really does not exist in law and they would have a lot of fun in court should someone ever decide to go that far.

Very few people would expect a competition line to be a subscription service. If it were something like your weekly horoscope or your daily weather update, it would make sense, but most of these services are just "text blah blah to 99999 to win a smart phone"

Then in tiny writing on the bottom of the screen : This is a subscription service costing 4/week .....

It's quite simply deliberately misleading people into signing up for things they'd never intended to sign up for.

They are ripping people off who are unfamiliar with their business model, kids, old people, people who didn't see the T&Cs in small writing (smaller than some TV resolutions will display btw!)

It is a nasty business model and it should not be allowed.

If these companies go out of business due to the new regs, then they clearly don't have a business to offer in the first place as if they can't get people to subscribe to their services based on what they are actually offering, then their product is pointless!

I have absolutely no issue with a company selling a product on its merits, and transparently. These competition lines are not making it absolutely clear what the costs involved are!

The Corinthian

cookie1977 wrote: »

Well if you're talking of cell phone cramming that's a whole other story.

With regards to bypassing the double opt-in? Yes, completely legitimate.

Solair wrote: »

I really do not see it as any different from sticking a tiny message on a chip and pin credit card terminal saying "By entering your pin you are entering a subscription agreement where by you will be debited for the cost of this dinner every week in perpetuity until you text Stop to 99999"

It would seem to me that a LOT of people are ending up subscribed to "services" they never intended to be without their explicit consent.

I don't believe that. Even the example you gave began with the position of "absolutely no recollection" and then you later admitted that she did have a recollection, after all. Even your example in your last post cites "a tiny message", when I have already pointed out that it doesn't have to be tiny for people not to bother reading it.

This is the point I've made, that it isn't tiny text - it's actually the same sized text most of the time and people just don't bother their collective arses reading it and I don't have a lot of sympathy for them because of this.

Have we truly reached a situation in consumerism whereby no one wants to take any responsibility for anything they do?

"I didn't know it was a subscription service - it's the service provider's fault"

"I didn't know roaming data costs would be so high - it's the operator's fault"

"I didn't know the house was overvalued - it's the government's fault"

Of course, there have been in the past some choice examples where consumers have been openly deceived and there I would completely support you, but in my experience, nine times out of ten the only deception is self-deception. Caveat emptor.

cookie1977

I'd agree with you. The user is technically at fault in many of these cases. I'm frequently puzzled how people go for ages without noticing the charges too (personally I thought I was normal in scrutinizing any bills are due me but I now think I'm in the minority).

But prior to the new regulations people were caught out and possibly unfairly. Have you ever seen the print on some of those competition ads? I've 20/20 vision and I've trouble reading it. Only recently virgin were fined for (not PRS but a good example anyway) their teeny tiny print.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/25/virgin-media-broadband-ad-misleading

Also a lot of the subscription messages do not clearly state the charges. They only state "this is a subscription service and may cost you money". These styles of writing can mislead people. Hopefully we'll see less and less of these issues later this year and I for one wont be shedding any tears for the PRS industry.

The Corinthian

Look, I'd actually agree with a lot of the criticisms levied at the PRS industry. Abuses used to be rampant, and even today they take place, although nowhere near as much.

Overall I'm responding principally to an increasing tendency in (Irish) society to automatically blame others for one's own mistakes, not only in this area but many others.

Solair

The problem is the products appear to be designed to catch people unaware!
Consumers aren't supposed to be looking out for catches all the time, which is what is happening in this industry.

I don't think it's defensible to be perfectly honest.

If the system is going to act as a payment platform it needs to be regulated as such. proper anti fraud measures, charge back facilities etc etc etc

The Corinthian

Solair wrote: »

The problem is the products appear to be designed to catch people unaware!
Consumers aren't supposed to be looking out for catches all the time, which is what is happening in this industry.

Yes they are.

Advertising and marketing are specifically designed to 'catch people unaware', to place demand subliminally in the mind of a prospective buyer or make a product or service look more attractive.

The simplest example of this is how pricing is carried out; why are things priced at, say, €3.99 or €99.95? To trick the mind into identifying the product as falling into a less expensive price group, thus making it more attractive.

We fall for this sort of marketing every day, leading us to buy stuff we don't need or that we could get at a better price elsewhere. And the onus has always been on the consumer to take care, to check before they pay, for thousands of years - where do you think the phrase caveat emptor comes from?

cookie1977

The Corinthian wrote: »

The simplest example of this is how pricing is carried out; why are things priced at, say, €3.99 or €99.95? To trick the mind into identifying the product as falling into a less expensive price group, thus making it more attractive.

To be honest the only minds this tricks are the marketing dept's of the companies that think it up.

If we were to rely on peoples abilities to read T&C's and such we'd have no need for regulators and complaints dept's.

The fact is that as the laws change for the better the organisations look for new ways of circumventing them to as close to the bone of the letter of the law. Case in point is the virgin ad posted previously where they argued they had used the correct sized font despite it being small. The ASA came in and said that while it was correct the poor printing made it next to impossible to read.

Laws are also made to protect the vulnerable. Laws give the consumer the abilities to protect themselves from exploitation. We've spent a lot of recent years moving away from the caveat emptor idea by trying to empower people/consumers and regulate businesses. Look at the EU who have done so much. caveat emptor is not as valid as it used to be

cookie1977

Another example of companies misleading and "tricking" customers:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12992055

Customers of course need to be aware but they also need protection too.

The Corinthian

cookie1977 wrote: »

To be honest the only minds this tricks are the marketing dept's of the companies that think it up.

I think most retailers would likely tell you that you don't know what you're talking about there.

If we were to rely on peoples abilities to read T&C's and such we'd have no need for regulators and complaints dept's.

I never said we don't have a need for regulators and complaints departments or that fraud or other abuses do not occur that should be acted upon.

Caveat emptor does not mean that a seller can lie through their teeth and not deliver upon what's promised - it has never meant that, so please don't misrepresent what I've said.

I think we're going OT at this stage, TBH.

cookie1977

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think most retailers would likely tell you that you don't know what you're talking about there.

I wouldn't agree. I think there's been a significant shift in the modern consumer. They can still of course be manipulated but old style marketing techniques are not as useful as they once were. Look at the growth of exactly what we're talking about here for instance. Increased market regulation and powers being given to consumers.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said we don't have a need for regulators and complaints departments or that fraud or other abuses do not occur that should be acted upon.

Caveat emptor does not mean that a seller can lie through their teeth and not deliver upon what's promised - it has never meant that, so please don't misrepresent what I've said.

I think we're going OT at this stage, TBH.

I'm not misrepresenting in anyway. You're saying that buyer beware is as important as it ever was but not so. Again the increased consumer powers and market regulation has reduced the need for this. Consumers can now use new legislation to fight back. Something that was not always there.

Do you think in the previous decades we'd have been able to protect our rights (as we are now? Comreg itself has only existed since 2002. Prior to that what would consumers have been able to do.

PS maybe we are getting off topic

The Corinthian

cookie1977 wrote: »

I wouldn't agree. I think there's been a significant shift in the modern consumer. They can still of course be manipulated but old style marketing techniques are not as useful as they once were. Look at the growth of exactly what we're talking about here for instance. Increased market regulation and powers being given to consumers.

You might want to let the retail industry know this then, as they're clearly making a mess of things.

You're saying that buyer beware is as important as it ever was but not so.

I didn't. I rejected the claim that a buyer should not have to beware.

Do you think in the previous decades we'd have been able to protect our rights (as we are now? Comreg itself has only existed since 2002. Prior to that what would consumers have been able to do.

At this stage if you want to continue this discussion in Humanities, I can split it off there, but it probably should either return to the topic or end now.

wush06

Hi all just talking about this over on the apple media forum. I also had this service charge me today and I can tell you I did not enter my number for this service.
I click on a link on Twitter the next thing I get is a message to say I sign up for this service.
Details here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056626932

cookie1977

The Corinthian wrote: »

You might want to let the retail industry know this then, as they're clearly making a mess of things.

No need to be smart. There are plenty of real world examples. Look how one of the presidential candidates in the most recent election almost won it without a single poster being used. Break it off into humanities if you want.

The Corinthian

I wasn't really trying to be smart, but you did effectively suggest that people in the retail trade who use price points, such as €3.99 or €99.95, don't know what they're doing, which does come across as a wee bit arrogant and you'll have to admit would engender a 'smart' response in return.

As to splitting off this thread into a separate one to go to Humanities, I suggested this is because we've spun off into a more general discussion about consumer (and retailer) responsibility, and I'll have to admit this is largely my fault, although it was fast going in that direction anyway.

This board is for mobile related issues and the original topic of this thread was "can you be subscribed without texting?" based upon an example that turned out actually did subscribe using text, in the end. If we want to continue on this topic, or one specifically related to it, fair enough; otherwise if the OP wants to close it or (s)he or others want it split into this more general discussion on Humanities, I would be happy to do so if you PM me.

Sponge Bob

Solair wrote: »

She has absolutely no recollection of having ever subscribed to the service and there are no incoming texts on her phone matching the dates on her bill. She never deletes SMS messages (android phone, huge memory no need to).

Reverse SMS Fraud is rampant. I would reckon she is probably an O2 Customer.