Jamster/Ringtoneking scam

G'day, all,

I'd missed the recent radio discussions about Jamster's great ringtone subscription swindle, and possibly other users of AAM have, too..(?)

My own kid got sucked into this scam somehow, and I've just written to the shysters in the following terms. Sorry for the long post, but I thought some of the references might be helpful to others affected. I've been stung for a relatively small sum, but I shudder to think about the possible 'hit' on users with monthly billing, or who have a large amount of pre-paid credit on their 'phone...

I hope these b*stards are shut down soon, although I suspect the German authorities will find an empty bedroom in a rented flat...

Dr. M.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sent: 26 June 2005 11:58
To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: Fraudulent ringtone subscription
Importance: High

Dear Sir/Madam,
Somehow or other, my 9-year-old daughter has fallen prey to Ringtoneking.ie’s – or Jamster, or Jamba, or iLove GmbH, etc… - ringtone subscription scam. On 17 June last I topped up her credit by €20, and within a day it had dropped to €4. When she brought it to my attention I looked up her call records on Meteor’s website and found the following charges:


17 Jun 05 14:26:10 0:0:00 [edit: number removed] 2.00
17 Jun 05 14:26:11 0:0:00 [" "] 2.00
17 Jun 05 14:26:18 0:0:00 [" "] 2.00
17 Jun 05 14:38:50 0:0:00 [" "] 2.00

18 Jun 05 17:37:00 0:0:00 [" "] 2.00
18 Jun 05 17:37:00 0:0:00 [" "] 2.00
18 Jun 05 17:37:03 0:0:00 [" "] 2.00
18 Jun 05 17:37:03 0:0:00 [" "] 2.00

Having first established that she had not voluntarily spent her credit buying ringtones/logos, I contacted Meteor customer care and they explained that these were reverse-charge SMS messages with a short code of 57757, and provided me with Ringtoneking’s premium-rate ‘customer services’ number, 0818-242311. I rang this from my landline and was thence referred to the 1890-943301 number for RoI ‘customers’. I then rang that number and followed the automated instructions for cancelling the ‘subscription’ (my use of quote marks is significant). Her phone then received another SMS, at a further €2 charge, confirming the cancellation:


25 Jun 05 20:26:05 0:0:00 [edit: number removed] 2.00

I then undertook a little further research and discovered the unsavoury truth about this operation, in Ireland and abroad. I refer you to the ODCA’s report at http://www.odca.ie/cfmdocs/news.cfm?article_no=5585 , to this representative UK discussion forum thread: http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/t15271.html , and to this report about a pending lawsuit against Jamster in the US : http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/05/HNjamster_1.html. I also ran a quick Whois.com search on the parent company and I will be posting hard copy of this e-mail to Mr (Messrs?) Samwer at Jamba’s registered address :

iLove GmbH
Pfuelstrasse 5
10997 Berlin
Germany

I need hardly express my distaste and anger at this cynical and fraudulent exploitation of – largely, it seems – vulnerable children, and of those who pay for their mobile phone credit. A quick read through the UK thread posted above and some of the links contained therein will give a sufficient sample of public opinion on the matter.

My primary concern now is to obtain an immediate refund from Ringtoneking of the €18 credit removed from my daughter’s Meteor account (and possibly more? She mentioned something similar happening a few weeks ago, but I can no longer access her call details for that period via Meteor’s site).

The ‘membership’/‘contract’ is and always was null and void, even by Ringtoneking’s own garbled terms and conditions – she is a child under 16 years of age and did not have the billpayer’s consent, and she did not receive the goods/services advertised – and I suspect that Ringtoneking’s activities are almost certainly unlawful under Irish and EU legislation. If they are not, they should be.

I further require formal confirmation from Ringtoneking – not just an SMS – that her ‘membership’ has in fact been terminated as advised; I gather that this is one of the major ‘gotchas’ involved, and I will not be able to top up her credit again until I am assured in writing that the charges will not recur. If within one working week I do not obtain full satisfaction, I shall institute legal proceedings against the company. I shall also advertise this matter as widely as possible with a view to coordinating a possible class action on behalf of Irish consumers stung by this scam (for that is assuredly what it is).

A final few comments for Regtel, for the ODCA, for the ASAI and for the management teams of the Irish mobile operators to whom I have copied this message. I find it incredible that (hugely profitable) providers of mobile services can just wring their hands and claim to be able to do nothing about these scams. At the very least, they should immediately provide – free of charge – the facility for parents to block their children’s phones from texting premium lines. I don’t know exactly through which media Jamster/Ringtoneking peddle their wares in this country, but I would urge the ASAI to investigate further. Finally, and with all due respect – the published advice of the Director of Consumer Affairs, to the effect that affected parties ‘should contact Jamster, who could issue a refund’ (my emphasis), appears to me wholly inadequate.

I welcome any comments you may have and I look forward to receiving an appropriate refund from Jamster/Ringtoneking.

Yours sincerely,
[etc.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


End of rant... I'll post back with any developments...

This crowd, www.veronica.ie, are also at it. Friend of mine never subscribed but noticed they stole €6 from him.

He's planning on going to the police on Monday, to report a theft of €6 from him.

Do parents generally allow their 9 years olds to have mobile phones these days? I'm not clear on if/how the child in this case initiated contact with the ringtone/logo vendor. Are you saying that she never did this and that the vendor unilaterally initiated contact? Or did she actually buy one or more ringtones/logos but then subsequently got charged for more?

Hi Clubman,

I personally disapproved, but her mother yielded to the pestering and let her 'inherit' an older sibling's old 3310 at her last birthday...
But I think we will be revisiting the policy in the light of recent events.

Generally, I would guess that the level of mobile phone ownership among Irish kids <16 is staggeringly high. I've seen 6- and 7-year-olds with the bloody things...

In fairness, until now, she (the 9-year-old) had been remarkably responsible about allowed usage/credit limits, etc.. It's largely a device - according to my wife - to enable us to call her home for dinner if she's out playing around the estate, etc. Go figure...

As to how she ended up subscribed to this scam — I believe these guys advertise on daytime TV (Nickleodeon, etc.) and on the back of magazines. The kid thinks they're buying a single ringtone and, well, you can follow the other links to see how the sting works...
Nasty, nasty mobile phone 'culture'. But of course I'm a just a grumpy old Luddite...

So are you saying that the following is not, in fact, true?

Having first established that she had not voluntarily spent her credit buying ringtones/logos ...

Click to expand...

In the plural, yes, it is. Look at the interval between the times these charges were applied - 0 seconds, in some instances? And anyway, she didn't even get the ringtones or logos 'contracted' for, just a poxy promotional SMS message.

Look, here's their [broken link removed], which I presume is pretty similar to the printed advertisements they run on the back pages of the Beano/Dandy/any number of those trashy pre-teen girls' magazines.

Are you telling me
(a) that these services, as they claim, 'do their utmost to avoid targeting children', or that a young kid would realise what they were getting into?
(b) that the multiple accounts of 'stop' messages being ignored (they also cost €2, btw) suggest an honest and above-board business?
(c) Ditto for any of the other comments linked to, including the ODCA's experiment?

Come on, Clubman, it might be the kid's own fault that she got duped initially - and she's being 'punished' for it, in that I will not buy her any more credit until this matter is resolved, and all of the kids have been told that they'll lose their 'phones if I ever again see ringtone purchases on their call records (which I can track online).
On balance, how does the honesty/truthfulness/responsibility equation look to you?

Forgive my total ignorance on this, but did this ringtone thingy get to No.1? If so how much was fraud?


M

DrMoriarty said:

In the plural, yes, it is. Look at the interval between the times these charges were applied - 0 seconds, in some instances? And anyway, she didn't even get the ringtones or logos 'contracted' for, just a poxy promotional SMS message.

Look, here's their [broken link removed], which I presume is pretty similar to the printed advertisements they run on the back pages of the Beano/Dandy/any number of those trashy pre-teen girls' magazines.

Are you telling me
(a) that these services, as they claim, 'do their utmost to avoid targeting children', or that a young kid would realise what they were getting into?
(b) that the multiple accounts of 'stop' messages being ignored (they also cost €2, btw) suggest an honest and above-board business?
(c) Ditto for any of the other comments linked to, including the ODCA's experiment?

Come on, Clubman, it might be the kid's own fault that she got duped initially - and she's being 'punished' for it, in that I will not buy her any more credit until this matter is resolved, and all of the kids have been told that they'll lose their 'phones if I ever again see ringtone purchases on their call records (which I can track online).

Click to expand...

Er, I was not making any judgement about this situation at all. I was merely asking if, contrary to what you said above, the child actually had initiated contact with the company in question and had purchased a ringtone/logo in the first place. From what you say this is the case. Your original post seemed to me to suggest that the company may have unilaterally initiated contact and started charging for services and I was just clarifying if this was or was not the case. It seems that it was not. Correct?

On balance, how does the honesty/truthfulness/responsibility equation look to you?

Click to expand...

As it happens, based on this and other anecdotal reports that I've heard, not too good.

Fair enough, Clubman.

By rights I should have written "Having first established that she had not voluntarily spent her credit buying [these] ringtones/logos ..."

The speed with which their system swooped in and levied these charges - once there was sufficient credit on the account - suggests to me that it must have been at some earlier point that she first sent that 57113 text that initiated the whole process.

Anyway, I hope the post has been of some help to others who might find themselves in a similar situation - and I do intend to pursue these guys. Not for the sake of the €18, obviously, but as a matter of principle. And, with permission, I'll post back to let people know how it turns out.

Jamster, scamsters... yeesh! 'There were none of that, in my day...'

Markjbloggs said:

Forgive my total ignorance on this, but did this ringtone thingy get to No.1? If so how much was fraud?


M

Click to expand...

I don't think the chart position has anything to do with the ringtone sales - it only applies to those strange people who actually purchased a CD-single of this tune in a shop.

DrMoriarty said:

By rights I should have written "Having first established that she had not voluntarily spent her credit buying [these] ringtones/logos ..."

Click to expand...

Fair enough - I understand you now.

Markjbloggs said:

Forgive my total ignorance on this, but did this ringtone thingy get to No.1? If so how much was fraud? M

Click to expand...

What got to No. 1 was a single based on the ringtone. So, based on fact that singles are sold on cd and via internet download, I'm thinking that the "alleged" fraud is based only on the ringtones.

"Alleged" fraud, because I'm sure that all aspects of charges etc are detailed on both the tv screen with the number to call, and in the text messages received with the download. Therefore, not really fraud, but merely a case of buyer beware.

Now, I do accept that the kids who are the buyers are not to know about such things and therefore the marketing is more unscrupulous than fraudulent.

I would also expect that there will be little response from the mobile companies here as well. It's like complaining to JVC or Panasonic about pornographic material on your tv, or complaining to Dell or HP about spam in your e-mail. Don't shoot the messenger.

As an aside, you should at least check the €2 charge for disconnection. In all of your mail, I believe that this is the only thing that Jamster have technically done wrong. In codes of practice on ringtones etc, it is a requirement that unsubscribe text messages are free.

Finally, if you don't want your kids to be wasting money on these things, ring your phone operator and have them block premium text messages. It's a simple thing to do and prevents them getting caught out in the future. There's no reason for them to be able to send such messages, or receive, apart from for ringtones.

Jamster are fraudsters. The ODCA tried to unsubscribe from the 'one off' and could not.

The ultimate culprits are the morons in charge of premium text number regulation, http://www.comreg.ie/ and [broken link removed] , I strongly suspect the latter.

Comreg should bar premium text number access for prepaid phones until the owner can prove they are 18 and therefore get access (read CONTRACT) as per the law. Regtel should test the damn things and ruthlessly close them down for non compliance.

If your phone is post paid there is a contract and you are over 18 (or the contract owner is) so no worries .

I'm with Tonka 100% there. I rang Meteor and they insist they have 'no way' of barring premium text number access for either pre-paid or monthly-billed 'phones. 'Course they don't...

Update on the Jamster scenario, as promised -
God bless that oul' German efficiency! Having sent off my e-mail only yesterday (Sunday), I got a reply from Jamba's Berlin offices at 9:31 this morning (OK, 10:31 in Berlin...) confirming the cancellation and promising a full refund within 20 days.

So sometimes it does pay to kick up a stink!

Wonder how long I'll have to wait for a response - if indeed any is forthcoming - from Meteor/Comreg/Regtel/the OCDA...?

tonka said:

Comreg should bar premium text number access for prepaid phones until the owner can prove they are 18 and therefore get access (read CONTRACT) as per the law.

Click to expand...

Strongly disagree. You would then be enforcing an idiotic rule on people who are over 18.

Consumer beware should apply here.

You shouldn't implement rules just cause some people (a minority) are getting caught out because the can't or don't understand the conditions of the service are availing of.

Further update (in fairness...) Got this 20 mins ago from Meteor:

Dear [X],

Click to expand...

Thank you for your email. I can confirm that your comments have been noted and passed to my relevant supervisors. I can also confirm that Meteor shares your views with regards to the Premium Rate SMS services and this is why we always urge our customers to call Regtel in relation to this.

The reasons it is not possible for Meteor to act in these cases are firstly it is not possible to block SMS be they incoming or outgoing and secondly once subscribed to a Premium Rate SMS service our customers contract is with these third party companies such as Ringtone king and due to Data Protection Law which was passed in Ireland in 1988 and amended in 2003 we cannot be involved in these transactions.

I apologise for any inconvenience and If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind Regards
[Y]
Customer Care Department
Meteor Mobile Communications

Click to expand...

And I still agree with Tonka. Would you argue that ...ah, forget it.

I'm with DrMoriarty and Tonka here.

No matter what way I look at it, I can't see how a 9 year old can be held to a contract that they entered into like this. If I go up to some kid and tell them I will give them a huge bag of sweets for that €2 coin in their hand and they agree to it, do you think it would be a legally enforceable contract when I give them a 10c bag of sweets and then come back a few minutes later for my next €2 ? I don't think so. Would it make it any more enforceable if I had a 20 page piece of paper (which I didn't show them) outlining exactly why I can take their money off them ? The only advantage that the ringtone messers have is that they can extract the money through a 2nd/3rd party - the mobile provider.

As for the providers saying they cannot block premium calls - this is utter commercialism at its worst. Of course they can block the numbers - they just don't want to because it earns them money. Even eircom let you block access like this - although they do charge you about €24.50 to set it up and €3 a month.

z

Eircom must let you block premium 15xxx numbers for free. It costs €0 setup and €0 a month on your bill , just ring 1901

Eircom were accused of deliberately circumventing this regulation by bringing into existance a special porn dialler international band a few years ago at twice the cost of a premium number , about €4 a minute for this international call.

Comreg eventually shut that eircom scam down around about a year back so now you must opt in if you want to ring the porn dialler countries and nobody does .

You can block voice calls (e.g. to 15** numbers), but not SMS, according to Meteor. Does that ring true, from a technical viewpoint? (no pun intended! )

DrMoriarty said:

You can block voice calls (e.g. to 15** numbers), but not SMS, according to Meteor. Does that ring true, from a technical viewpoint? (no pun intended! )

Click to expand...

It's definitely possible to do this, both blocking on sending, and receiving which is just as important.

Assuming Meteor at least have similar equipment to their competitors.