MEMO/08/516
Brussels, 17 July 2008
SECTION 1: THE SWEEP
1. BACKGROUND
What is a Sweep?
An "EU Sweep" is a joint EU investigation and enforcement action to check for compliance with consumer protection laws. It involves carrying out a targeted and coordinated check on a particular sector with a view to seeing where consumer rights are being compromised or denied. Member State enforcement authorities then follow up on these findings, contacting the incompliant companies and demanding that they come into line with the relevant requirements. Legal action can be taken against operators who violate EU consumer law.
The first EU Sweep on Airline ticket selling websites was conducted in 2007. It brought together 15 Member States plus Norway in a first joint action between enforcement authorities across Europe (see IP/08/722).
This second EU Sweep announced today is on mobile phone content services such as ring-tones, and wallpapers). It was carried out between 2-9 June 2008, by enforcement authorities in all 27 Member States as well as Norway and Iceland, and it was coordinated by the European Commission.
How does a "Sweep" work in practice?
There are two phases:
What sanctions can be taken?
EU consumer laws are enforced – and sanctions and penalties are therefore set – at national level. Possible measures can include a request to a company demanding to change or cease a prevailing practice, imposing and collecting fines, or closing down web-sites. Enforcement authorities are obliged to take measures (repeatedly if need be) until the infringement has ceased.
Which Member States participated in the mobile services Sweep?
All 27 Member States plus Norway and Iceland participated in this second sweep. The full list of participating authorities, and their press contacts, can be found below.
Why does a Sweep require EU co-operation?
Online selling often concerns operators located in countries different from the consumers' country.
In case of deceptive online selling practices, tackling these rogue traders can be done more effectively if there is EU wide co-operation. For example, a website selling to one Member State, e.g. France may well be based in Belgium, and to challenge the illegal practice, France needs to request the co-operation of the Belgian authorities.
2. THE MOBILE SERVICES SWEEP
What are mobile services?
Mobile phones have become an extremely popular means of communication and a sector which continues to grow. Linked to this is a growing market for mobile services i.e. ring-tones, wallpapers for mobile phones, subscriptions to chat services, phone games, logos, etc. These mobile services are widely advertised and sold on the Internet, as well as through print media or on TV.
Why did you pick mobile phone content services for this second sweep action?
The mobile phone service sector was chosen by the Commission and national enforcement authorities for this Sweep due to the growing number of complaints received by Member States about providers in this sector. The European Consumer Centres (ECCs) have also reported 27 cases so far in 2008. Many of the complaints referred to misleading practices which targeted children and young people in particular. There are two examples:
The service provider denies responsibility but the consumer had to pay the fees to the mobile operator so that his regular GSM phone service would not be blocked.
The mobile phone operator has agreed to refund messages received by the end of October, in total €124,76. All other expenses which the consumer requests from the ring tone vendor –in total 272,71 – were retained. It should be noted that the mobile phone operator's billing has been delayed throughout the whole autumn which is why the consumer has not even been aware of these messages.
When did this Sweep take place and what does it involve?
In the first phase of the exercise, officials in enforcement authorities across Europe examined mobile services websites during the week of 2 – 6 June. In total, they checked over 500 websites to see if they were in compliance with the relevant EU legislation, or whether there were for instance signs of misleading practices. Among the practices which were addressed in this sweep were:
How did the authorities choose which sites to check?
The sites in question were targeted either by inputting key words into search engines, pre-selected lists of sites with mobile services content or by collecting information from organisations (consumer NGOs, ombudsmen, organisations defending the interests of children and young people etc) which had received complaints about specific sites.
3. NEXT STEPS
What happens next, as a follow up to these findings?
Following on from the findings of this initial investigation, national enforcement authorities will now contact the traders responsible for the incompliant websites, telling them to correct the irregularities or face legal sanctions. The actual sweep phase is to be followed by appropriate enforcement actions. Flagged sites are scrutinised closely to determine those sites that require action. This enforcement phase of the exercise will include notably for identified cross border cases, applying the cooperation mechanisms of the CPC Regulation, namely requesting investigative and enforcement assistance from other Member States' enforcement Authorities. Cases when the business, consumer and enforcer authority are all situated in the same country will be followed by the given national authority.
Feedback on these enforcement actions is to be provided to the Commission is to be returned with a first indication in the first half of 2009.
How long does enforcement take?
It varies. Some companies are ready to correct mistakes after the first contact by the enforcers while others tend to use all the available tools (including legal ones) to postpone the necessary changes. The length of the enforcement phase depends on how complicated the individual cases are or whether they require international coordination.
For this sweep the enforcement phase is just starting and the authorities are currently assessing the findings of the June sweep in order to decide on the most appropriate follow up action to take. Complicated cases – e.g. those involving several sites in different countries – may last even longer than a year. We will have a cleaner picture once authorities report back on their enforcement work in the first half of 2009.
Why have only 5 Member States agreed to name the non-compliant websites?
Practices and national legal constrains of the participating enforcement authorities are different. In some countries they are free to go public with names of the companies involved right after when they have detected problems while in other countries they need to wait until the enforcement actions are finalised sometimes through court procedures. Authorities from only 5 Member States and two other participating countries confirmed that they can name non-compliant websites at this stage of inquiries.
Is it realistic to expect that the authorities will be able to tackle the problems with these websites? Will many of them not just close down and re-open under another name, or even just ignore the enforcement demands?
It is the job of the enforcers to check the market and correct mistakes. They are free to use all the powers in their possession to cease infringements including the shutting down of the web-sites. Companies can not just ignore the instructions of the authorities without facing this option. Some of the operators may certainly re-open their sites elsewhere and that action will not be treated in the framework of the present sweep. Nevertheless, subsequent enforcement actions may identify those new sites and authorities may check these sites repeatedly.
How do you contact websites that do not have contact details (which is one of the problems identified with many of these websites)?
Authorities have the necessary powers and tools to establish the identity of operators.– either those owning the site or at least those operating the server on which it is based. If the identity of the (legal or private) person operating a problematic web-site can not be established and therefore can enforcers can not contact it, the authorities may request the web server operator to shut it down.
The enforcement phase on the Airline sweeps has taken longer than expected – how does the Commission intend to close this Sweep satisfactorily?
The airline sweep was a valuable exercise - not only have more than half of the non-compliant websites come into line with consumer law – but it also helped to give a clearer picture of this sector and the issues that still need to be addressed. More work needs to be done. The Commission intends to discuss the issue of EU enforcement of consumer law with EU Ministers in the Autumn. It will also meet with the airline sector to discuss their role and responsibilities in ensuring that consumer laws are respected in their sector. The intention is to wrap up the Airline Sweep in May 2009.
Why are you starting a new Sweep when the follow-up to the last one is still ongoing? This kind of enforcement action is new. But we have already learned from the first exercise on Airline ticket selling websites that it is effective and we want to develop it further. 50% of airline ticket selling websites have been corrected at an early stage of enforcement actions– which is a very positive sign. We will build on that experience and intensify enforcement work. The present sweep tackles a completely different market segment. The Commission wanted to check the compliance of this high-tech sector and the ability of the Enforcement network to tackle these type of challenges.
4. THE EU LAWS
What are the EU consumer rules that the companies need to comply with?
Under EU rules, companies must ensure that consumers who purchase telecom services on-line:
- can see who the trader is and how to contact him
- can clearly see what the total price is
- are not misled – if a product is advertised as "free", it must be free with no hidden charges or subscription conditions
- should understand clearly what they are purchasing, whether it is a subscription or not and what the terms and conditions are.
The following EU measures provide the legal basis for the sweep:
SECTION 2: THE RESULTS- RESULTS OF SITES CHECKED BY COUNTRY, SITES TARGETING CHILDREN, BREAKDOWN OF MAIN PROBLEMS FOUND
5. THE RESULTS
Of the 558 sites checked, 466 sites were flagged for further checks to verify whether one or several of the irregularities described above could be found on them. They are further detailed in the Press Release.
How many companies were investigated?
Over 500 sites were verified for compliance with EU laws. In 20% of the cases the trader has not yet been identified. Further investigation may establish the identity of the owners. The remaining sites relate to over 340 companies.
Were the same websites checked by different Member States? As for the previous sweep, authorities searched for sites targeting consumers in their country. For companies operating different sites for different countries, authorities checked the one concerning their own consumers Sometimes a site operates in a language which is in use in more than one country. Such sites might have been checked by more than one authority. However, it did not happen too frequently and authorities will coordinate their work through the Enforcement Network.
Did the results demonstrate a cross-border dimension? How significant was it? The sweep's first results indicate a rather low cross border dimension (16%), which could be an indication for a fragmented market. This rate was higher in the sites targeting children and young people (22%).The picture will become clearer after the enforcement phase.
Were breaches different in different Member States?
Enforcement Authorities used a common list of questions to verify the web-sites. Findings so far has not revealed any national specificity.
First Results
The Commission report on the first phase is based on available reports from 27 participating Member States plus Norway and Iceland.
Table 1: Websites checked by the sweep and number of the websites that need further investigation
|
Total number of websites checked
|
Total number of websites that need further investigation
|
Total number of potential CPC (cross border) cases
|
|
558
|
466
|
76
|
Table 2: Websites checked by the sweep and number of the websites that need further investigation per Country
|
Country
|
Total number of the websites checked
|
Total number of the websites that need further investigation
|
Total number of potential CPC cases
|
|
Belgium
|
28
|
27
|
14
|
|
Bulgaria
|
22
|
21
|
0
|
|
Czech Republic
|
43
|
30
|
3
|
|
Denmark
|
15
|
15
|
4
|
|
Germany
|
30
|
20
|
5
|
|
Estonia
|
15
|
13
|
1
|
|
Ireland
|
18
|
17
|
14
|
|
Greece
|
8
|
7
|
1
|
|
Spain
|
25
|
25
|
7
|
|
France
|
27
|
20
|
0
|
|
Italy
|
7
|
5
|
0
|
|
Cyprus
|
5
|
5
|
0
|
|
Latvia
|
14
|
14
|
0
|
|
Lithuania
|
20
|
20
|
2
|
|
Luxembourg
|
9
|
2
|
0
|
|
Hungary
|
23
|
23
|
6
|
|
Malta
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
|
Netherlands
|
35
|
20
|
1
|
|
Austria
|
29
|
27
|
0
|
|
Poland
|
11
|
8
|
1
|
|
Portugal
|
9
|
9
|
0
|
|
Romania
|
40
|
38
|
0
|
|
Slovenia
|
11
|
10
|
0
|
|
Slovakia
|
15
|
0
|
0
|
|
Finland
|
15
|
15
|
6
|
|
Sweden
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
|
United Kingdom
|
43
|
39
|
5
|
|
Iceland
|
8
|
7
|
0
|
|
Norway
|
26
|
22
|
1
|
Particular attention was paid to sites targeting children and young people
As ringtones and wallpapers are particularly popular with children and young people, authorities paid particular attention to actively search for and to verify sites targeting (partially or exclusively)children and young people. Authorities had evidence that websites sometimes target children taking advantage of their lack of consumer experience and credulity. Typical criteria used to identify these sites were cartoons, popular characters from TV shows or the explicit indication in the site that parental content was required. The sweep's first results reveal a rate of irregularities (80%) comparable to that of sites oriented towards adults.
Table 3: Websites targeting children and young people
|
Total number of websites checked targeting children and young people
|
Total number of websites that need further investigation
|
Total number of potential CPC (cross border) cases
|
|
279
|
237
|
54
|
|
Criteria*) used to identify sites targeting children and
young people
|
Out of the 279 sites targeting children and young
people
|
|
- Images from cartoons were used
- Imges from TV shows for children were used
- Request for parental consent was required
|
61%
23% 18% |
* In some websites more than one criterion applied.
What were the main problems found?
The most common problems identified in this first phase of the sweepconcerned: misleading price information so that the real costs are unclear or customers may be unaware that they are signing up to a subscription; the use of the word "free" to lure consumers into long-term contracts; missing information about the trader and/or missing information about terms of payment, means of delivery or on complaint handling.
Table 4: Main problems found*
|
Type of problem
|
Examples of problem
|
Total number of websites in which these problems were
detected
|
Of which targeting children and young people
|
|
Missing or incomplete price information
|
-the website does not indicate the price including all
taxes;
- In case of subscriptions, the word 'subscription' is not clearly mentioned - the period of subscription is not clearly mentioned; - Where appropriate, the website does not indicate all additional delivery costs; |
268
|
136
|
|
Missing or incomplete information about the trader:
|
- Trader's name not indicated;
- Geographic address of the trader is not provided; - Missing contact details of the trader; |
399
|
203
|
|
Misleading presentation of information
|
- use of small prints to give key information on the terms of the
contract;
- information on the contract is available on the site but difficult to find - Misleading use of the word 'free'; |
344
|
187
|
* Some websites contained more than one of the above problems
Any conclusions so far?
Enforcement authorities will do their job and will follow up on problems in the interest of the consumer. But enforcement work alone can not be expected to reach and resolve all of the problems. Here the role of the consumer is critical in terms of awareness and prevention. Parents can educate their children . and warn them of the danger that they may face on the internet whether they buy mobile content services or engage in other commercial activities.
SECTION 3: LIST OF COMPANIES/WEBSITES FLAGGED FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION BY REPORTING COUNTRY
|
Trader Name
|
URL of the website
|
Reporting Country
|
|
Artiq Mobile B.V.
|
Finland
|
|
|
Aspiro Mobile Finland Oy
|
Finland
|
|
|
Aspiro Mobile Finland Oy
|
Finland
|
|
|
AT Bisnes Com
|
Finland
|
|
|
CSW Group Limited
|
Finland
|
|
|
Jamba! GmbH
|
Finland
|
|
|
Mediaplazza.com
|
Finland
|
|
|
Mixmobile Oy
|
Finland
|
|
|
Mobile G Host Oy
|
Finland
|
|
|
Not known
|
Finland
|
|
|
Sulake Dynamoid Oy
|
Finland
|
|
|
Tilt.tv
|
Finland
|
|
|
TMG
|
Finland
|
|
|
Wiking Mobile
|
Finland
|
|
|
Zed Oy
|
Finland
|
|
|
ANTENNA INTERNET
|
Greece
|
|
|
banana.gr
|
Greece
|
|
|
BOB MOBILE HELLAS
|
Greece
|
|
|
COSMOTE
|
Greece
|
|
|
JAMBA GmbH
|
Greece
|
|
|
M-STAT MOBILE SERVICES
|
Greece
|
|
|
WIND HELLAS
|
Greece
|
|
|
d3 miðlar
|
Iceland
|
|
|
Hugi.is
|
Iceland
|
|
|
Icon
|
Iceland
|
|
|
Nova
|
Iceland
|
|
|
Stjörnuspekistöðin
|
Iceland
|
|
|
Tal
|
Iceland
|
|
|
Vodafone
|
Iceland
|
|
|
Not known
|
Latvia
|
|
|
Not known
|
Latvia
|
|
|
AS Delfi
|
Latvia
|
|
|
IK "TNX"
|
Latvia
|
|
M.E.Media Market
|
Latvia
|
|
|
Not known
|
Latvia
|
|
|
One Ltd.
|
Latvia
|
|
|
SIA "Digitālo Multimediju centrs"
|
Latvia
|
|
|
SIA "Euromobile"
|
Latvia
|
|
|
SIA "Mobilie Pakalpojumi"
|
Latvia
|
|
|
SIA Aspiro Latvija
|
Latvia
|
|
|
SIA Community
|
Latvia
|
|
|
SIA Digitalo multimediju centrs
|
Latvia
|
|
|
SIA Meddlet
|
Latvia
|
|
|
Not known
|
Norway
|
|
|
Not known
|
Norway
|
|
|
Aller Edge Media AS
|
Norway
|
|
|
Aspiro AS
|
Norway
|
|
|
Dagbladet
|
Norway
|
|
|
Djuice
|
Norway
|
|
|
Egmont Serieforlaget AS
|
Norway
|
|
|
Funmobile
|
Norway
|
|
|
Jamba Affiliate
|
Norway
|
|
|
kemina.com
|
Norway
|
|
|
M Quest AS
|
Norway
|
|
|
M Quest AS
|
Norway
|
|
|
Mediaplazza
|
Norway
|
|
|
Mediehuset Nettavisen & Egmont
|
Norway
|
|
|
Mobile Media Services Norge Ltd.
|
Norway
|
|
|
Mobiljenta.com - Mediaplazza
|
Norway
|
|
|
Mobilporten AS
|
Norway
|
|
|
Modus Communications AS
|
Norway
|
|
|
Simiq B.V. (Celldorado)
|
Norway
|
|
|
Startsiden Mobil, ABC Startsiden AS
|
Norway
|
|
|
Wixawin mobile Entertainment
|
Norway
|
|
|
Yo YO Mobile
|
Norway
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
Not known
|
Romania
|
|
|
AUDIOFON ROMANIA SRL
|
Romania
|
|
|
GSMLAND
|
Romania
|
|
|
GSMPedia
|
Romania
|
|
|
H.A.T. Group Co Romania S.A.
|
Romania
|
|
|
HUSKVARNA AB
|
Romania
|
|
|
Junona
|
Romania
|
|
|
Kleo.ro
|
Romania
|
|
|
MOBILOGO
|
Romania
|
|
|
Neogen SA
|
Romania
|
|
|
NET DESIGN SRL
|
Romania
|
|
|
NETOPIA Sistem
|
Romania
|
|
|
SC WEB ACTIV SRL
|
Romania
|
|
|
VOXLINE COMMUNICATION
|
Romania
|
|
Artiq Mobil B.V.
|
Sweden
|
|
|
Lorena Medienagentur GmbH
|
Sweden
|
|
|
MediaPlazza
|
Sweden
|
|
|
Stardoll AB / Paperdoll Heaven Inc.
|
Sweden
|
|
|
Zylom Media Group BV
|
Sweden
|
SECTION 4: PRESS CONTACTS FOR NATIONAL AUTHORITIES
List of Contact Points for the Press
|
Country
|
Contact point
|
Authority
|
|
Belgium
|
Anne-Cathérine Ceciliot
anne-catherine.ceciliot@economie.fgov.be +32 2 277 86 93
|
Directorate general Enforcement and Mediation
|
|
Bulgaria
|
Gabriela Rumenova
g_rumenova@abv.bg +359 29330568
|
Commission for consumer protection
|
|
Czech Republic
|
Tomáš Bartovský
bartovsky@mpo.cz +420 224 853 311
|
Ministry of industry and trade
|
|
Denmark
|
Kia Hee Gade
Kni@fs.dk +45 32 66 90 13
|
Office of the Danish Consumer Ombudsman
|
|
Germany
|
Jochen Heimberg
jochen.heimberg@bvl.bund.de +49-30-18444-00200
|
Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety
|
|
Estonia
|
Hanna Turetski – Toomik
hanna.turetski@consumer.ee + 372 6 201 706
|
Consumer Protection Board of Estonia
|
|
Ireland
|
Mary Sugrue
mary_sugrue@nca.ie + 353 1 4025561
|
National Consumer Agency
|
|
Greece
|
Eleni Alexandridou
alexandridou@efpolis.gr +30 210 3801549
|
Directorate of Consumer Policy-General Secretariat of Consumer
Affairs
|
|
Spain
|
Maria Luz Peñacoba
mluz.penacoba@consumo-inc.es +34 91 822 45 55
|
National Institute for Consumption
|
|
France
|
Gérard Peruilhé
gerard.peruilhe@dgccrf.finances.gouv.fr +33 1 44 97 23 19
|
DGCCRF
|
|
Italy
|
Gianfranco Nitti
gianfranco.nitti@sviluppoeconomico.gov.it +39 0647052156
|
Ministry of Economic Development – Market Regulation Department
– Directorate General for Competition and Consumers - Office X
"Administrative Cooperation"
|
|
Cyprus
|
Christos Solomonides
csolomonides@mcit.gov.cy +357 22 867204
|
Competition and Consumer Protection Service of The Ministry of Commerce,
Industry and Tourism of Cyprus
|
|
Latvia
|
Sanita Biksiniece
Sanita.Biksiniece@ptac.gov.lv +371 67388622
|
Consumer Rights Protection Centre of Latvia
|
|
Lithuania
|
Neringa Ulbaitė
n.ulbaite@nvtat.lt +370 5 212 15 95
|
State Consumer Rights Protection Authority of the Republic of
Lithuania
|
|
Luxembourg
|
Judith Meyers
judith.meyers@eco.etat.lu +352 24784349
|
Ministry of Economy
|
|
Hungary
|
Katinka Klima
k.klima@nfh.hu +36-1-459-48-38
|
Hungarian Authority for Consumer Protection
|
|
Malta
|
Josephine Borg
josephine.a.borg@gov.mt + 356 21221020
|
Consumer and Competition Division
|
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands Consumer Authority
|
|
Austria
|
Arnulf Komposch
+43 1 71100 2500
Maria Reiffenstein
+43 1 71100 2505
|
Federal Ministry of Social Affairs and Consumer Protection
|
|
Poland
|
Kamila Jurowska
kkurowska@uokik.gov.pl +48 225560314
|
Office of Competition and Consumer Protection
|
|
Portugal
|
José Manuel Ribeiro
jose.ribeiro@dg.consumidor.pt +351 21 356 46 88
|
Consumer Directorate-General
|
|
Romania
|
Laura Hora
laurahora@anpc.ro +40 21 314 34 50
|
National Authority for Consumer Protection
|
|
Slovenia
|
Andrejka Grlić
gp.tirs@gov.si +386 12808700
|
Market Inspectorate of Republic of Slovenia
|
|
Slovakia
|
Branislav Zvara
zvara@economy.gov.sk +421 2 4854 7073
|
Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic
|
|
Finland
|
Laura Salmi
laura.salmi@kuluttajavirasto.fi +358 9 7726 7809
|
Consumer Agency
|
|
Sweden
|
Marek Andersson
marek.andersson@konsumentverket.se +46 54 194068
|
The Swedish Consumer Agency (Konsumentverket)
|
|
United Kingdom
|
Office of Fair Trading
|
|
|
Iceland
|
Tryggvi Axelsson
tryggvi@neytendastofa.is +3545101100
|
Neytendastofa/Consumer agency
|
|
Norway
|
Hege Kristin Ulvin
hku@forbrukerombudet.no +47 97 17 26 50
|
The Consumer Ombudsman's office
|