Sign in / up

back to article SMS compo firms fined £200k for typosquatting, misleading punters

PhonepayPlus said R&D Media Europe (R&D) and Unavalley BV (Unavalley) misled consumers into entering the competitions through the practice of typosquatting and that those consumers were then charged for receiving text messages in connection with the competitions being run. PhonepayPlus found the companies had breached its Code …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Neil Greatorex

    Keep up, keep up!

    This is old news:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17048251

    0 1
  2. Martin
    FAIL

    And did they also...

    ....have to return every last payment that was made to them? And did the directors of the companies go to prison for six months, and get banned from running a company?

    Thought not.

    8 0
    1. frank ly
      Reply Icon
      Facepalm

      Re: And did they also...

      Especially since (IMHO but IANAL) they seem to have counterfieted documents for the purpose of fraud. There's nothing 'special' about the internet as a communications medium, so why does the law pussy-foot around things like this?

      0 0
    2. Crisp
      Reply Icon

      Re: And did they also...

      If I helped myself to a couple of quid out of your wallet every time I felt like it I'd be going to prison for a lot longer than 6 months.

      0 0
  3. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
    Stop

    "used the same logos, colouring and fonts"

    So, have the lawyers for LinkedIn, Twitter etc. sued them for breach of copyright? A few $m in damages would help stamp out this sort of behaviour.

    8 0
    1. Lamont Cranston
      Reply Icon

      That was my first thought, too.

      Fingers crossed that the organisations spoofed do sue the hell out of them.

      3 0
  4. Shonko Kid
    Holmes

    More education needed for the web-surfing public

    Please follow these simple rules;

    1) Don't ever enter or click in anything that says you've won a prize. You haven't.

    2) Don't type addresses into the address bar. Type into a google search* and then create a bookmark/shortcut icon/whatever for the site you want, and use that from then on.

    3) Be careful of where you enter any form of personal data, you may want to visit a site to register for something, but be 100% sure the site is genuine before registering.

    *Other brands of search engine are available.

    3 3
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: More education needed for the web-surfing public

      "2) Don't type addresses into the address bar. Type into a google search* and then create a bookmark/shortcut icon/whatever for the site you want, and use that from then on."

      Because search engines NEVER get it wrong or have dodgy results or sponsored links do they. </ObviousSarcasm>

      Better advice -> triple check your spelling then save a bookmark;

      1 0
  5. dotdavid
    WTF?

    I dunno, but...

    ...the name PhonepayPlus still sounds like a scam mobile payment scheme to me.

    4 0
    1. Sir Barry
      Reply Icon

      Re: I dunno, but...

      Yeah, PhonePayPlus does sound dodgy, but they were originally called ICSTIS and are an agency of Ofcom specifically regulating premium rate phone numbers and services.

      0 0
  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Stop charging Customers for Receiving Texts - Problem Solved.

    4 1
    1. Graham Marsden
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Down

      Problem not solved...

      ... because there are perfectly legitimate businesses who make it clear up front that if you sign up to their services you'll be charged for texts and will stop when requested.

      Why should those businesses be affected by an overly broad and draconinan piece of "big boot" legislation?

      0 1
  7. Matthew
    Paris Hilton

    Eh?

    I'd love it if every single online registration didn't make phone number a required field.

    I'd also love it if the "tick here not to receive any spam" box actually worked too.

    Paris icon for pipe-dreams.

    0 0
    1. DaveyDaveDave
      Reply Icon
      WTF?

      Re: Eh?

      Do you have some condition that prevents you from making up random strings of 11 digits?

      0 0
      1. david 63
        Reply Icon

        Re: Re: Eh?

        Thereby possibly redirecting the junk to someone else.

        Good thinking.

        0 0
        1. DaveyDaveDave
          Reply Icon
          Meh

          Re: Re: Re: Eh?

          I'll try again:

          Do you have some condition that prevents you from making up random strings of 11 digits that are obviously not valid phone numbers?

          I've never had 01111111111 rejected.

          0 0
        2. Lockwood
          Reply Icon

          Re: Re: Re: Eh?

          Use 07700900xxx

          They're the UK mobile phone version of the 555 numbers.

          0 0
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Eh?

            Or use 020 7230 1212, which used to be better known as "Whitehall 1212". Guaranteed to get a response, and they probably have permanent call tracing on it...

            0 0
            1. david 63
              Reply Icon

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eh?

              If I was doing it they'd all go in the screening list ;)

              0 0
            2. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
              Reply Icon

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eh?

              020 7930 9000 might be a better number to use

              0 0
  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What ever happened to personal liability?

    If your stupid enough not to check the address you have entered, and even more stupid enough to provide your contact details to all and sundry, then you deserve to be ripped off.

    Only YOU are responsible for your own safety/wellbeing.

    Being ripped will certainly educate web users!

    1 1
    1. Gav
      Reply Icon
      Megaphone

      Re: What ever happened to personal liability?

      Absolutely. Dim people must be punished for not being as smart as us. That'll teach them! Being stupid means you are not deserving of any protection from criminal behaviour.

      We should be facilitating this, not stopping it. Let's get a directory of everyone not too smart, or a bit slow, or old, or mentally confused, and publish it online so that rip-off merchants know exactly who deserves to have their money taken off them. This would punish dumb people and reward smart people with no morals. Exactly the kind of people we need more of and the kind of society *I* want to live in!.

      And once we've done with the stupid, we can start on the blind. Make them take some personal responsibility for not reading what's there, plain as day, in jpeg images. Deserve eveything they get, they do. And slow people. If you can't run from the man-eating tigers like normal people then you deserve a mawling.

      3 0
This topic is closed for new posts.