Beware the ‘click-jackers’ robbing you by text message
They pose as household brands – and con victims into costly subscriptions
ADIRTY internet trick known as ‘clickjacking’ has been revealed as the method by which thousands of people are being routinely signed up for nuisance text subscriptions without their consent. The cost for sending a plague of nuisance messages is then charged to customers’ mobile phone bills. A company called Xplosion has been fined more than £1 million by the mobile billing regulator for allowing this to happen – causing ‘a lot of consumer harm’.
Customers were sent texts they did not want – about online games, adult videos and quizzes – and charged £4.50 a week to receive them, simply after making a few wrong clicks on the internet. Xplosion operated several subscriptions services and had thousands of customers, many of whom received worthless content. Material delivered to their handsets was limited in its availability or sometimes non-existent.
Consumers did not know they were subscribing to a service because the ‘consent to charge’ tool was hidden from them while browsing the internet. Some also complained of being charged for sending a ‘STOP’ message to the company in an attempt to end the service.
Those affected should contact the company for a refund.
HOW USERS ARE DUPED BY PHONE FRAUDSTERS
WHEN surfing the web – often with a smartphone – users might be tempted to click on a story of interest, a video or a logo imitating a brand they recognise.
But what you click on might not always be on what you think – instead you could be pressing an unseen button.
Tools hidden behind a webpage can capture personal information – including your mobile number – and supposedly your consent.
This ‘proof’ of consent is then delivered to companies providing mobile services.
This is known as ‘ clickjacking’, which has seen mobile users signed up to premium-rate subscription services without their knowledge – or explicit consent.
The Phone- paid Services Authority, the regulator for goods and services charged to a mobile phone bill, says it does not accept this as a valid method of obtaining consent from consumers.
Joanne Prowse, the regulator’s chief executive, says: ‘ Consumers must not be charged without their consent. It is not complicated. Providers who fail to ensure customers have given consent will face robust regulatory action. The service in question caused a lot of consumer harm.’
SUBSTANTIAL PENALTY AFTER HUNDREDS COMPLAIN
THE mammoth fine – referred to by the Phone-paid Services Authority as both ‘substantial and appropriate’ – is split between three different cases, amounting to £ 250,000, £ 350,000 and £ 440,000 each for three different types of service provided by Xplosion.
This represents the conclusion of an investigation that was triggered by hundreds of complaints by members of the public.
To put the penalty into context, the total sum of fines handed out in the financial year ending March 2018 was £3.8 million, spread across a dozen or so companies. Xplosion bosses claim to be unaware that clickjacking was affecting its services and that people were being fraudulently signed up to a subscription.
In a statement to The Mail on Sunday on Friday, Xplosion bosses said the company does not accept blame and that it too was the victim of third-party fraud.
The statement reads: ‘Whilst our services were compromised, not only was this without our knowledge but moreover we, like the affected customers, were innocent victims of third party fraud.
‘ We intend either to ask for a review of the decision, or to request an oral hearing for a fresh assessment of the facts.’ Regardless of Xplosion’s part in the case, the reg- ulator says it is ‘ liable for the exploit’.
A WIDESPREAD TRAP FOR HONEST BILL-PAYERS
XPLOSION is the latest company to be named and fined for failing to check its customers consented to receive costly texts – but there are many more operating which continue to dupe honest bill-payers.
The Mail on Sunday has heard from dozens of readers caught by the premium rate trap.
They include a child and a pens i oner charged f or messages related to fitness, a businessman fleeced for years by a competition service he knew nothing about and a meticulous household bill-checker who found 12p a time charges for texts relating to lottery number updates – which he had no use for.
Ernest Doku, a mobile phone expert at comparison website uSwitch, says: ‘Premium rate texts are an expensive trap that anyone can find themselves falling into.
‘Be careful about giving out your mobile number online.’
One victim of a premium rate trick, known only as Mick, told us how he lost a significant sum from what he calls a ‘fraudulent practice’. Mick was charged £3.75 per text, five times a month for a quiz competition he knew nothing about. In total he was left more than £100 out of pocket.
He says: ‘At the time I did not even have a smartphone, so was unable to open the messages. I was advised to text the word STOP and tried to block the number but this did not stop my receiving them. My only solution was to change my service provider and my phone number.’
Victims of such premium rate deceptions are often forced to fight their battles for refunds alone.
Mobile networks can deny responsibility and refer customers to the third-party company.
These companies often say they have proof of consent and refuse a refund – l eaving people with nowhere to turn.
Pursuing the matter in court would be costly and time-consuming for the sums involved.
At the moment, the advice is to kick up a fuss by complaining to your mobile network, the company in question and the regulator at psauthority.org.uk. You can also tell us – email laura. shannon@ mailonsunday.co.uk.