The Consumer Disputes Board did not recommend paying additional refunds in a case where clicking on a fraudulent link and installing a malicious application resulted in a large bill for the consumer.
In January 2021, as many as 2,500 text messages to toll-free numbers abroad were sent from the subscription owned by the consumer in one day. The telecom operator, whose customer the consumer was at the time, considered this exceptional, blocked the sending of further messages and contacted the customer.
According to the operator’s assessment, the suspicious activity pointed to malware installed on the phone. However, the phone where the subscription in question was used was not in use by the owner of the subscription.
Don’t click the link if you don’t know
According to the meager event description submitted to the Consumer Disputes Board, the user had received a text message containing a link on his phone in the name of the transport company. By opening the link, he ended up on a website where an application was offered for download.
The user had downloaded the application and given it access rights, as a result of which malware that sends text messages abroad was installed on the phone.
According to the Consumer Disputes Board, installing an application containing malware on a phone requires the express approval of the user.
The consumer demanded a full refund
The operator refunded half of the bill of about 750 euros. The consumer demanded the full amount back, but according to the operator, the customer also had to bear his responsibility.
It reminded of the clause in the terms of the subscription agreement, according to which the holder of the subscription is basically responsible for the user’s actions and his diligence in using the subscription after handing over the subscription to another.
The board considered that the installation of an unknown application shows slightly greater carelessness, which is sufficient for liability to arise.
– The responsibility for text message charges caused by unauthorized use remains with the consumer and the trader is not obliged to pay additional compensation, the board stated in its decision in October.
Source: Consumer Disputes Board