ACMA gives SMS spammers $15.75 million reasons to stop

Stan Beer
Monday, 26 October 2009 03:05

IT Industry - Strategy

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has hit two companies and a number of individuals with massive fines for luring unsuspecting customers of dating sites into expensive SMS sex chats with bogus persons. The penalty, handed down in the Federal Court of Brisbane, sounds a warning to spammers looking to cash in on the growing popularity of mobile phone chat services.

The ACMA action has resulted in $15.75 million in fines against companies Mobilegate Ltd and Winning Bid Pty Ltd and three individuals - Mr Simon Anthony Owen, Mr Tarek Andreas Salcedo and Mr Glenn Christopher Maughan - with another three parties to face the court on the same charges on November 30.

The spammers were found guilty of luring members of dating websites into SMS sex chats using services called ‘Safe Divert’ and ‘Maybemeet’ at a cost of up to $5 per chat. The victims, believing they were chatting with genuine members of dating sites, were unaware that they were employees of Mobilegate and Winning Bid.

Those victims who suspected that they were being taken for a ride because the people they were chatting to were not providing their mobile number were told it was a real person who was using the “Safe Divert” service to keep their mobile phone number private.

The ACMA, which believes the scheme generated more than $2 million in proceeds, instituted proceedings against eight respondents in the Federal Court in December 2008, alleging contraventions of both Acts in relation to premium SMS chat services.

The ACMA alleged that the respondents were engaged in a complicated scheme to obtain mobile phone numbers from members of dating websites, using fake member profiles, in order to send commercial electronic messages by SMS.

‘This is a significant outcome for all mobile phone users,’ said Chris Cheah, Acting Chair of the ACMA. ‘The maximum penalties provided for under the Spam Act are very high. The ACMA considers that the substantial penalties imposed by the court in this case show that spam will not be tolerated in Australia.’

‘In the ACMA’s view the conduct of these respondents was particularly malicious and deceitful as it deliberately and systematically preyed upon vulnerable people, offering false hope and expectations,’ Mr Cheah said.