Just tax the stupid people

[kingandy]

I saw this coming a mile off - it's clear from the Jamster TV adverts that they're trying to trick people into joining subscription services that they don't know how to leave. (The unsubscription details are only available on the same ad as tells you how to join, so you have to catch the advert again and manage to read the quick-scrolling terms and conditions that run across the bottom of the screen. Unless you're aware that texting "STOP" to the automated number is the default mechanism.)

It's possible that they've kept within the letter of the law (since they have in fact provided unsub details, and at first point of contact no less), but it's a clear Rule 7 violation...

ETA: I'm slightly dubious about a BBC reporter using her position to publicise a problem she's had with a particular company. In this case, yes, I've long thought that Jamster are A FORCE FOR EVIL AND TO BE STOPPED, but still, this sort of personal agenda should be scrutinised. In fairness, attributing the article to a specific writer does reduce the need for objectivity - it's clearly editorial in nature. But still.

Comments

[nattydreadi.livejournal.com]

Providing unsub details is not currently law, it is seen as good practice as it stops all the resellers from getting constant emails from me telling them to remove users from their services. Approximately 6 months ago the Networks tightened up and demanded that all of these companies standardised to the 'Stop' Code. Previously it could be anything as long as it mentioned in the full T&Cs how to stop (never available on the ads)

This idiot has brought the problem on himself by not monitoring or managing his account properly. He is probably trying to get the network to refund him the charges because of his own stupidity.

[kingandy]

Ah, not law but "watchdog guidelines".

I don't have much sympathy for Mr Hannah Bayman - the text was not impossibly small as he says, and it's not as though Jamster adverts are hard to come by (they seem to have bought three adverts every break on every cable channel for the past month or so). It was incredibly fast, but when somebody's clearly going out of their way to obscure something I usually make a point of reading it.

I remember one mobile contract advert (Orange, I think) that advertised really cheap texts, but on reading the small print it turned out that you paid for n texts over a month for a flat fee (which is fair enough), and these texts were allocated daily and didn't carry forward (which is not). Alright if you use that many texts every day, I suppose...

On a side note, the Jamster Terms & Conditions do mention the subscription ("The weekly/fortnightly/monthly flat fee shall become due every week/two weeks/month your subscription contract is valid irrespective of whether or not you actually download any content during any particular subscription period"), but then they also say you have to be 16 years or over...

[nattydreadi.livejournal.com]

In the download functions though it does say that by accepting this service you agree that you are 16+

They are treading a very fine, profit making line. However as with any shady / risky business, the potential profit makes it more than worthwhile (1.50 a text, 2 texts a week = 12 - 15 quid a month per sub for sending out messages that cost virtually nothing to generate.