ISP Equity Networks Add Paid Security Feature to UK Users Without Consent
Business broadband ISP and managed service provider Equity Networks has recently become the latest company in a growing list to irritate some of their UK customers, which it did by automatically adding a paid (£12.99 a month) internet security feature – ‘SafeWeb’ – to their accounts, without first getting explicit consent.
Over the past few weeks’ we’ve reported on how both Onetsream (here) and Daisy Communications (here) have managed to attract the ire of their customers by adding an extra paid service to their accounts without first gaining express consent. Consumer laws expressly forbid this behaviour (e.g. “inertia selling“), but it can be a bit more of a grey area when it comes to businesses (B2B doesn’t enjoy the same protections).
Nevertheless, basic business ethics usually helps to ensure that companies play fair with each other, although that isn’t always the case. In the latest example, Equity Networks’ small business customers recently received an email to let them know that they’d partnered up with SafeWeb to “provide you with enhanced protection and data loss prevention capabilities“. Sounds good, except of course there’s a catch.
Advertisement
The service came in an “active” state as part of a 30-day free trial, but “after your trial the service will automatically continue for just £12.99 per domain, per month” and to avoid this you’d have to manually email the provider to request an opt-out. So it’s hard luck if you innocently overlooked the email, assuming it to be just another one of those disposable and unsolicited promotional spams that are so common these days.
Copy of the Equity Networks Email
One of the those affected by this appears to be taking a consumer-grade FTTC broadband line to supply their small business connection, but as this is still a B2B relationship then there aren’t many direct protections in place to prevent the behaviour. A spokesperson for Ofcom told ISPreview: “In these circumstances, the customer would need to raise their concerns directly with the company” (or a court of law, but hopefully no disputes go that far).
Advertisement
Generally speaking, business customers are highly unlikely to appreciate having extra paid services tacked on to their package without first gaining their consent and will probably, when the time comes, respond by voting with their feet. We did email Equity Networks on Wednesday to ask for their thoughts on this kind of offer, but the provider hasn’t responded.
None of this is to say that SafeWeb itself is a bad service, in fact it could be brilliant, but this is perhaps not the best way of introducing it.
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
« EE UK Launch Wi-Fi 7 Broadband Router and 5G Standalone Plans UPDATE3
Virgin Media UK Adds Support for Rakuten TV Streaming App »
Vodafone have done a similar thing for years, automatically sticking ‘Vodafone Secure Net’ on their contract customers’ accounts.. free for the first 3 months, then £1 a month. It’s one of the first things I turn off whenever I rejoin as a ‘new’ customer.
I think that’s subtly different, in that you’re signing up for a contract with a free trial of Vodafone Secure Net. In my mind this is just inertia selling where the ISP is hoping that their customer won’t notice that a new item has been added to their bill.
@Ben I agree it is subtly different. I do still think it’s just an attempt to squeeze an extra quid a month out of contract customers by default, and the free 3 months at the start is there so that by the time you start getting charged for it, you’ve settled in and are probably no longer bothering to check your bills.
The whole industry seems to be riddled unethical practices like this. It’s hardly an encouragement to go with smaller providers rather than the big boys like BT.
This is getting really tiring now. Does Ofcom need to amend the general conditions to prevent ISPs from playing this sort of “game” with consumers and small businesses?!
The rules already prevent it for consumers, at least in so much as saying that it’s a big NO and you may get in trouble for doing it. But as the article says, business-to-business is a more complex area.
Looks like it is a plague now. One thing I don’t understand, in for instance Poland for things such like this ISPs (but it is not limited to ISPs only) paying millions in penalty fees. Why UK can’t go this way and issue hefty fine for sh*t ISP doing that?
Just like the water companies, they would simply just charge it onto customers to pay even more. Fines don’t work, unless other conditions are set like not being able to increase prices beyond inflation or something similar.
yeah, water prices can be regulated like energy prices. It is just a matter of doing it and stop selling critical services to private hand/funds etc.
Hi,
Surely simple contract law says that unless both parties have agreed to it then there can’t be a charge? That agreement has to be in some active way, either by actively using the service or deciding to pay for it.
Providing that the recipient doesn’t actively use the service then they can simply not pay. If the method of obtaining payment isn’t an active one (i.e it is a direct debit, for example) then I don’t see how taking the money is equivalent to the customer deciding to pay for it.
The businesses doing this leave themselves open to a liability that a customer could notice that this has happened any time up to six years after the charge was added and successfully sue them. If I was auditing the accounts of that business then I would expect them to have made provision for at least some of their customers to do that as a liability in their accounts. Given the margins that some of these businesses operate on, that could be inconvenient…
It will say in the small print of their contract that they can. It would then be up to a court to decide if it’s an unfair contract.