SMS spammers suffer ‘no show’ judgment
We reported in January 2009 that ACMA had launched legal action against a bunch of companies and individuals alleged to be involved in an illegal SMS spam racket.
Five of the respondents to the Federal Court action have failed to take necessary procedural steps, and the Court has agreed to ACMA’s application for default judgments. After hearing evidence about the defaults and the original conduct, the Court has ordered:
- that parties including Mobilegate Ltd, Winning Bid Pty Ltd, Simon Anthony Owen, Tarek Andreas Salcedo and Glenn Christopher Maughan have breached the Spam Act and / or Trade Practices Act in various ways;
- that they be restrained from certain conduct, of the kind involved in the scam, for seven years; and
- the matter be re-listed for directions in relation to any penalty hearing as the above respondents on 18 September 2009.
The case against other respondents, who have defended the case, continues.
Optus fined $110k for SMS spam
ACMA has issued $110,000 in infringement notices to Optus Networks Pty Ltd for allegedly sending SMS messages without accurate sender identification, breaching the Spam Act 2003.
It seems that Optus pumped out 20,000 messages promoting its OptusZoo entertainment service, but didn’t identify itself as the responsible sender. Instead, it just quoted sender identification ‘966’. Recipients were apparently expected to work out that this meant ‘Zoo’ in keypad speak. Of course, it could also mean ‘Yom’, ‘Zom’ or ‘Xon’.
According to ACMA, Optus has paid the penalty and advised that new compliance measures have been implemented that will ensure accurate sender identification is included in all future commercial electronic messages.
More comment soon.
Turning up the heat on premium mobile service providers
We’ve previously talked about premium mobile services being a regulatory hotspot for 2009. We’ve got the ACCC getting cranky about it, a proposed new code from the Comms Alliance and ACMA beating up mBlox and TMG Asia Pacific.
In a sign that things are going to stay hot (and probably get hotter) for premium mobile service providers, ACMA has now launched Federal Court proceedings against Mobilegate Ltd (a Hong Kong company), Jobspy Pty Ltd, Winning Bid Pty Ltd and individuals associated with those companies for breaches of the Spam Act and Trade Practices Act.
Oxygen8 Communications signs stupid enforceable undertaking
ACMA has accepted an enforceable undertaking from Oxygen8 Communications, following Spam Act complaints that SMS commercial electronic messages were sent by content providers using Oxygen8′s platform.
Reading ACMA’s media release, we can see how Oxygen8 was at risk of action if it didn’t offer ACMA an undertaking – effectively the same as submitting to court injunctions.
But will somebody please explain why Oxygen8 agreed to some crazy promises ?
ACMA: Power without theory ?
OK, it’s a harsh headline, but we really wish ACMA would more generously share its thoughts about compliance with the Spam Act and Do Not Call Register Act.
The potent powers that these laws give the authority carry a moral obligation to educate as well as punish. We’ve argued the point before, and now there’s another case where the Communications Authority’s communication isn’t as authoritative as it could be.
Hyarchis rep objects to ACMA spam warning
We recently reported on a Spam Act warning given by ACMA to SMS marketer Hyarchis.
Hyarchis’ Australian representative Peter Pichler is reported as rejecting the warning, arguing that it arose out of an incident where a mischievous third party entered a bogus phone number on a Hyarchis social networking site.
Mobile premium service provider warned by ACMA
ACMA today announced a formal warning to Hyarchis Company Limited for alleged breaches of the Spam Act 2003 using SMS.
Hyarchis is a mobile content provider that operates a ‘ringtone club’ and some social networking sites. It despatched SMS promotions to an Australian mobile user, without having consent to do so.
On this occasion, ACMA has used its discretion not to impose a penalty, but noted that penalties of up to $1.1 million per day can apply to repeat offenders.
The lessons:
- Promotional email, SMS, MMS, IM and any other similar messages are all regulated by the Spam Act.
- You can’t send them to Australians without actual or inferred consent.