Consumer's complain against errant provider

The letter below was sent to CASE (Consumers Associations of Singapore), M1 and the IDA.

Much has been complained about errant mobile services providers. Sybase365 has been complained about n-times on the internet. Kudos to this neofik for fighting back and taking the complains all the way not just to get back a justified refund but to point out the wrong practices of such a firm.

I must admit, when my sister was wrongly charged a continuous monthly subscription for a single download of a wallpaper, I fought and settled for only half a refund.
Imagine the countless consumers who let them get away with it and earn much undeserved profits.
Now lets hope CASE or IDA will take this case forward and shut down undesirable business conducts.

Consumers, Fight for your rights!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Whomever it may concern

Infocomm Development Authority

Misleading information by errant Provider for SMS Premium Rate Services (PRS)

Dear Sir,

I am writing this letter with the intent of highlighting a certain case of misrepresentation and misleading of information by Premium Rate Service Provider Sybase 365 with regards to the TMG Quiz Service which was allegedly provided to my mobile number, 9xxxxxxx.

As a current subscriber to M1’s mobile services, I had recently found out in my October bill that I was being charged an extra $40 for ‘Value added services’ which I have allegedly subscribed to. Upon further enquiry with my service provider, I was told to contact the service provider, Sybase365, myself regarding the charges.

Upon contacting Sybase 365, I was told by Miss Amy Sarah Kurian that I had incurred a total of $56 of charges for subscribing to their TMG quiz service. Apparently, I had indicated my intention to subscribe to this premium service upon texting back ‘MOON’ on the 13^th September to join this ‘Quiz contest’. (A scanned copy of the SMS transcript provided by Sybase 365 is attached for your reference.)

I contested this claim as I did not know that I had subscribed to this service and asked for a refund of all the charges. However, I was told that the terms and conditions were clearly laid out in both the website and in the SMS that were sent to me. As they refused to refund the charges, I asked for a copy of my SMS transcript with Sybase 365, as attached.

Thereafter, I did a search online and found that there were quite a few users who had subscribed to this ‘Quiz service’ provided by Sybase 365 and were charged for it. The url links are appended for your reference:

http://talkback.stomp.com.sg/forums/showthread.php?t=37836&page=2

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=1972437

http://eakky.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/sms-to-winrather-it-is-to-get-conned/

I am highlighting this issue to the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) as it is the authority that was charged with drafting the ‘Code of Practice for Provision of Premium Rate Services’ (http://www.ida.gov.sg/doc/Policies%20and%20Regulation/Policies_and_Regulation_Level2/20070508145556/PRSvcCode.pdf), and I would gather, to be the relevant authority for me to address this issue.

I would like to highlight some points of contentions I have regarding the way I was solicited into allegedly subscribing for this premium service by Sybase 365 and the way the service was provided.

Firstly, I was sent the SMS (please refer to first SMS from Sybase 365 on 13^th September; appendix transcript page 3) to participate in this contest because I had clicked on a MSN weblink sent to me by one of my contacts. I have already checked with the contact who sent me the MSN message and he has indicated that he did not send any such messages to me on 13^th September. As such, I would suspect that this MSN message link was sent to me as a message spam without the knowledge of my contact, an innocent victim of a MSN chat virus.

It is to my knowledge that Premium Service Providers have to adhere to an anti – spam policy and can only introduce the service via internet only (2^nd paragraph on the cover page of attached document from Sybase 365; appendix transcript cover ).

My first point of contention then, is how this service was solicited through the internet. It is of questionable conduct that this advertisement was disguised as a chat invitation without my contact’s consent and knowledge, and a reputable service provider like Sybase 365 would allow its services to be solicited through such means ( The MSN chat log is appended as evidence though the website does not seem to be the same as the one I clicked on 13^th September).

9/13/2008		1:20:57 AM		Legal Counsel		neofik		very funny, look and get :p www.BonusToken.net
9/13/2008		1:26:43 AM		neofik		Legal Counsel		haha wats tat

I was then brought to a website (http://www.wixawin.com/sg/ads/moon.aspx) on participating in some Mid-Autumn festival quiz contest. At the default view, the terms and conditions were hidden from view and I was only asked to enter my mobile number and answer a simple question.

My second point of contention is how the terms and conditions were laid out. No effort was made to bring my attention to the terms and conditions and in fact, only upon scrolling down the webpage would I have known that I am supposed to have agreed with these terms and conditions in tandem with the SMS that was sent to me shortly after when I texted back.

As such, at the point in time when I texted back ‘MOON’ indicating my interest to ‘join the contest’, as shown in the first SMS from Sybase 365, I had no knowledge of the terms and conditions whatsoever. I acknowledge that I had texted back ‘MOON’ with the intention of joining the contest, but I had no idea that joining the contest meant subscribing to their premium service at $4/q as the sentences were laid out separately and I had assumed that I would only be liable for charges should I answer any of the questions.

Under section 2.2.1(a), no advertisement should be presented in such a way that is reasonably likely to confuse or mislead in any way. Under the circumstances, I think you would agree with me that my assumptions above are not without logic, reason or basis. The terms and conditions of the premium service that I was allegedly subscribing to was not apparent and no effort was made to direct my attention to them.

Thereafter, upon seeing the phrase ‘$4 charged’ in the first question SMS, I had assumed that I would be charged only if I answered any of the questions and had not replied to Sybase 365 anymore. I immediately stopped my SMSes to Sybase 365 upon receiving the 2^nd SMS from them on 13^th September. Little did I know that I was being charged $4 for every question that was sent to me.

During the course of the weeks that followed, I had constantly ignored the SMS text messages from Sybase 365 to be spam. In fact, I had looked through one of their SMS with the intention of stopping these spam SMSes. But unfortunately, the SMS I looked through did not state the means to unsubscribe from this service (eg. SMS on 16^th September from Sybase 365), I had assumed thereafter that all the SMS had the same content and did not offer me the information by which to stop these SMSes.

During that first month of the alleged ‘subscription, I was also not informed of the charges that I had incurred cumulatively. The SMSes from Sybase 365 only supplied the information of ‘$4/q’, which I had assumed to be the charges I will incur should I reply to the SMS and answer the question. This seems to contravene with section 2.6.3 of the ‘Code of Practice for Provision of Premium Rate Services’.

In paragraph 3 of the cover page sent to me by Sybase 365, they stated that they had sent a confirmation SMS stating all the important information regarding the subscription service (SMS on 13^th September 1:28:19: appendix transcript page 2). However, this SMS was sent together with the first question and as can be seen, I actually received the first question before the confirmation SMS. I had then stopped replying after knowing that I will be charged $4 if I answered.

In the context of the above matter, although the confirmation SMS stated and conveyed all the important information as Sybase 365 claimed. I, as a consumer, could not be expected to know the intent and implications of that SMS as confirmation that I have subscribed to their premium service, presented in that manner.

All of these would not have happened if it was stated to me very clearly, with the terms and conditions at the outset, that I was subscribing to a service upon texting ‘MOON’ on 13^th September.

As such, I hope that IDA would take action against Sybase 365 and misrepresenting information in such a way as mislead unsuspecting consumers into subscribing to their Premium Service unknowingly. The code drafted by IDA was a admirable effort to provide an environment whereby both consumers and providers could operate in a manner that was beneficial to both parties. However, it is errant providers like Sybase 365 which misconstrues the meaning behind, and seek to exploit the loopholes in the code.

It is my belief that Sybase 365 did not seek to inform would be subscribers of the charges, terms and conditions of the Premium Service before allegedly subscribing consumers to the service. They had in fact, acted in an ambiguous manner and conducted their business in a way that was deliberately misleading to consumers.

I hope to hear from IDA regarding this matter soon and to direct my efforts to the relevant parties to address my concern if I have been mistaken.

Thank You

Best Regards

Mr Neofik

Contact: 9XXXXXXX

Email: ***