Lotto By Text. Scam!

Shah79

wantmemoney wrote: »

so five years and thousands of complaints later this scam is still operating


these people should not be trusted to operate a 'lottery'(if that is indeed what it is)

I'd like to have a bit more faith in PhonePayPlus - I don't think such a reputable regulatory body will allow scammers on board. They have been very strict in the last few years and many companies including the likes of Channel 4 was fined - does not mean they are a scammer too?

I think you are a bit too harsh - have you actually use the service?

Also, the lottery is operated by The National Lottery - and LottoByText is a commercial lottery syndicate management company which provides Lotto Results Text Alert service with syndicated lottery lines. From what I understood from the UK Gambling Commission this is perfectly legal!

See http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/help/syndicates.ftl - The National Lottery site also encourages people to manage their own lottery syndicate - don't see why it is a scam.

My advise is best not to use the service if you are not familiar or happy with the service. Just refrain yourself from replying to the text!

northernsoul85

I went back online and in the small print it said "We will bill your first £4.50 with in 24 hours of you signing up, this will pay for your first week after your free week"

To make matters worse, I got 4 numbers on 1 line last night. I checked my account and guess what, it says zero balance!

Deleted_User - have you actually claimed your winnings on the site? If you haven't entered your claim reference number, your winnings won't be claimed and thats probably why you have zero balance. I'd check again. It's the 'Claim Winnings' Section. It's pretty self explanatory when you're there. With the huge rollover you could be quids in.


Hope this helps

wantmemoney

http://www.phonepayplus-services.org.uk/output/search-adjudications.aspx

06 December 2012
Information provider Marketing Craze Limited
Service provider IMImobile Europe Limited

Adjudication Details
THE CODE COMPLIANCE PANEL OF PHONEPAYPLUS
TRIBUNAL DECISION

BACKGROUND

Between 3 October 2011 and 28 November 2012, the Executive received 267 complaints in relation to a subscription-based competition service (the “Service”) operated by the Level 2 provider, Marketing Craze Limited. The Service operated on shortcodes 85200, 87770 and 82526. For £4.50 per week subscribers to the Service received five entries in each of three weekly lottery draws, namely the Wednesday and Saturday National Lottery “Lotto” draws and either the Tuesday or Friday “Euromillions” lottery draw. Subscribers were entered into the lottery draws as part of a syndicate containing up to 48 other subscribers. Subscribers were also provided with the results from the lottery draws via SMS text message.

As an inducement to enter into the Service, potential subscribers were offered five “free” entries into one of the lottery draws (“the Offer”). The Offer, and the Service, were promoted using the Level 2 provider’s own website, third party websites and telesales calls.

Complainants generally stated that they had not consented to be charged, or that they had been misled into entering the Service and did not appreciate that they would incur premium rate charges.

SUBMISSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

ALLEGED BREACH ONE
Rule 2.3.2

“Premium rate services must not mislead or be likely to mislead in any way.”

1. The Executive submitted that the Level 2 provider had breached rule 2.3.2 in that consumers were misled or likely to have been misled by the promotion of the Service.

The Executive alleged this breach for three reasons.

Reason 1: the telesales calls

The Executive noted that the Offer was promoted during telesales calls, as well as through website advertising. The Level 2 provider made available six recordings of such telesales calls. The Executive noted that the Offer was presented during these telesales calls as a reward to the consumer, for example, for participating in a survey. The Executive submitted that consumers perceived that they were being offered a free reward, and by accepting the reward would receive five free entries to a lottery draw, thereby without incurring any charges. The Executive asserted that in reality, by accepting the Offer consumers were subscribed to the charged Service. In addition, the Executive relied on the complainant accounts, which it believed evidenced that consumers had been misled into incurring premium rate charges.

Reason 2: the syndicate

The Executive observed that the promotion of the Service via third party affiliate websites (Appendix and telesales calls (Appendix C) did not mention that subscribers to the Service were entered into the lottery draws as part of a syndicate.

The Executive noted that subscribers to the Service were entered into lottery draws as part of a syndicate containing up to 49 members, and that any winnings that the syndicate earned would be shared equally between the members of the syndicate, and not won solely by the individual subscriber. The Executive submitted that this information had a significant impact on the value of the Service to consumers, and on the perceived value of the Offer but had not been made clear to consumers before entering the subscription and/or acceptance of the Offer, and that such omission was therefore misleading.

Reason 3: use of the phrase “free trial”

The Executive submitted that the presentation of the Offer was misleading in that it stated that the first draw was part of a free trial period. The Executive submitted that in fact the Service mechanism was such that consumers either incurred a premium rate charge before the lottery draw in which they were to be entered for “free” took place, or incurred a charge for the message containing the results of the “free” lottery draw.

The Executive further submitted that the reasonable consumer would expect the free trial period to be clearly defined and to have a clear end point. However it was not made clear to consumers at what point or when they would first start incurring charges. The Executive also submitted that, given the promotion of the Service, the reasonable consumer would expect the free trial period to include the provision of five free lottery draw entries and free notification of the results for the relevant draw. The Executive submitted that as the free trial period did not meet these reasonable expectations the promotion of the Service was misleading to consumers.

The Executive further noted that the terms and conditions for the Service available on the Level 2 provider’s website stated that any winnings earned in the free lottery draw could not be claimed unless the consumer subscribes to the charged Service.
For the above three reasons, the Executive submitted that consumers were misled, or were likely to have been misled, and as a result the Service was in breach of rule 2.3.2 of the Code.

2. The Level 2 provider denied the breach. It pointed out that the interpretation of promotional material can differ between consumers. It also emphasised that regardless of how the Service was first promoted to consumers, in every case consumers were provided with information that complied with the Code prior to and following subscription to the Service.

SANCTIONS

Initial Overall Assessment

The Service had a clear and highly detrimental impact, directly or indirectly, on consumers.
• The Service had the sole purpose of generating high revenues and did so through intentional or recklessly misleading promotions.

The Tribunal’s initial assessment was that, overall, the breach was very serious.

Sanctions Imposed

Having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the level of consumer harm and the fact that consumers were misled on a large scale, the Tribunal decided to impose the following sanctions:

• A fine of £250,000; and
• A requirement that the Level 2 provider must refund all consumers who claim a refund, for the full amount spent by them on the Service, within 28 days of their claim, save where there is good cause to believe that such claims are not valid, and provide evidence to PhonepayPlus that such refunds have been made.

so much for Shah79 and northernsoul85 'positive' posts.

greeneyed.geegee

I also got scammed by these people. I didn't receive any telesales calls but I did sign up to a few new opinion/survey type companies which is where they must have got my mobile number from. I lost £18 before I decided to check why my Pay as you go was running out so quickly. I've unsubscribed and got my provider to block their number. Does anyone think I should do anything else?

greeneyed.geegee

I got my money back from Lotto By Text (Marketing Craze) by cheque today!! I completed a complaint form on line to PHONE PAY PLUS. They sent me a reply with the adjudication and advised me to phone Lotto by Text, which I did, quoting the complaint details and asking for a refund. I didn't hold out much hope but a cheque for £19.50 arrived in the post today. Took about 2 weeks but it obviously works. Very pleased with result and recommend everyone does this.:T

robbies_gal

the above positive posts pbviously have some connection to lottobytext they ignored all posts showing that theyve been investigated

Shah79

wantmemoney wrote: »

so much for Shah79 and northernsoul85 'positive' posts.

Seriously - does this means Channel 4 Big Brother which got fined £800k is dodgy and a scam too...?

"Regulator issues record £800,000 fine for newspaper competitions that hit the ...... ICSTIS has ruled that Channel 4's Big Brother voting service has breached its ..."

Fair enough they got fined. And fair enough I missed the 2008 fine. If they are really a scam why PhonePayPlus, and most importantly National Lottery/Camelot are allowing it to operates, and why aren't the telephone network like Vodafone barring the service?

Is it really a scam???? I don't believe the market will let this type of scam to operate so openly since 2006!

Lottery syndicate is not illegal, and the National Lottery site clearly encourages it. Google it if you must! Looks to me LottoByText is only a lottery syndicate management service and allow you to play the service via Premium Rate text, and it seems perfectly legitimate to me.

I've joined the service and I have no issue with the service. I would assume a lack of understanding on how the service works leads to all these random rants, and this is proven with the random comment which tied the credit card to the service, when the service does not even take credit cards!

I stand by my belief, and if it's really is a scam Camelot would have stop it from operating, because at the end of the day it is a lottery syndicate management site where lottery tickets are bought directly from the National Lottery!

Prove to me lottery syndicate is illegal, then i'll shut my big mouth!

Shah79

And seriously guys - DO NOT ENTER your mobile no into any competitions, freebies, surveys sites if you do not wish for your number to be circulated around the world and IF YOU DO NOT want to get random marketing messages.

If you do not do this, you will not receive random marketing text + you will not get tempted into subscribing to a premium rate service like the above, and you won't get upset about it when you get charged.

Nothing is free in life, if you opt in for a freebie, CHECK THE SMALL PRINTS and make sure you understand the terms.

Otherwise you have only yourself to blame!

wantmemoney

the simple fact is that Marketing Craze / LottobyText were sending unsolicited marketing text and unauthorised billing of accounts without permission from the account holders.

You are right it wasn't a scam, it was miss-selling, it was fraud.

On the 10 December 2009 PhonepayPlus fined Digital Daze ltd £40,000 for a premium rate billing scam.
The people behind Digital Daze were also behind Marketing Craze.

Recently Marketing Craze became Bitstacker Limited.

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/News-And-Events/News/2013/7/Emergency-procedures-initiated-2-July-2013.aspx

Emergency procedure investigation
2 July 2013

PhonepayPlus, the UK regulator for premium rate telephone services, has launched an Emergency procedure investigation under paragraph 4.5 of its Code of Practice (Twelfth Edition) (the Code), following internal monitoring conducted by PhonepayPlus. This monitoring evidenced affiliate marketing that appeared to utilise a form of malware known as ransomware to lock consumers’ internet browsers and force them to interact with online offers which directed them to the Level 2 provider, Bitstacker Limited’s “lottobytext” subscription service(s).
Bitstacker Limited has been identified as the Level 2 provider responsible for the service. A Tribunal will decide whether the service is in breach of the Code as soon as is reasonably possible after PhonepayPlus has received a response from the Level 2 provider to its Emergency procedure breach notice, which is to be sent to Bitstacker Limited in due course. The service has now been suspended pending conclusion of the investigation and a decision by the Tribunal.
In the meantime, other providers are reminded that enabling this service, or any other services that operate in a similar way, may result in breaches being raised against them.

Shah79 wrote:

Nothing is free in life, if you opt in for a freebie, CHECK THE SMALL PRINTS and make sure you understand the terms.

Otherwise you have only yourself to blame!

stop trying to con the people on this forum.........and trying to con the victims into believing they were to 'blame' is disgusting.

Coopdivi

The Lottobytext website is still touting for affiliates of which, no doubt, Shah79 is one.


According to this news item from Penman and Sommerlad in The Mirror, Lottobytext's parent company Marketing Craze Ltd. were last year fined £250000 by Phonepay Plus.


http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/12/lotto-scam-nets-bumper-fine-fo.html