Fuze Forge Games - THREE’s latest Nightmare?

[20yearsCustomer]

Following numerous complaints, it now seemed like Three have been hacked by allowing a third party (Fuze Forge Game) to scam innocent customers—some have noticed unauthorised charges on their bills, while others remain unaware and continue to be scammed.

In my opinion, this could be an inside job that requires thorough investigation by Three. It is highly suspicious that after lodging a complaint, Three confidently directs customers to contact the scammer for a refund.

As a victim of this odd phenomenon, I questioned Three about how I could possibly subscribe to an app using a router—a device without a screen or touchpad, designed solely to send and receive signals, not function as a mobile device.

Three has failed its customers. It’s time to admit that your system has been compromised and compensate the victims.

[Paddiewack]

As you know the onus is ultimately on the customer to be aware of scams and report them. The litigation would have to targeted at the companies rather than the network providers unless you could prove negligence on their part;something I think would be very difficult to achieve. They would argue (I’m sure) that they warn customers of the need to be vigilant but not all of us are. I’ve seen people on this very forum in the last week complaining that payments have been taken from their bank account over a two year period apparently without them noticing. Now this wasn’t involving third party texts but it does highlight the apparent lack of vigilance that some people display. You make an interesting observation!

[psconsumers]

As you may have inferred, I was involved in urging the PSA to address the widespread scams that were common 5–10 years ago. I created the payforitsucks.co.uk website which was instrumental in forcing the networks to abandon their notorious Payforit system.

While consumers should review their bills carefully, they should not reasonably expect a broadband router to become subscribed to chargeable services—especially given that two‑factor authentication is legally required. Because most cases involve broadband routers, it appears this company has found a way to bypass that requirement.

A binding contract requires both parties to demonstrate an intention to be bound. For these subscriptions to be enforceable, the service provider must show clear evidence of such intention. The idea of an “unwitting contract” is inherently contradictory.

Consumers also face difficulties knowing where to direct complaints. Their first contact is usually Three, as the charges appear on the Three bill. Three typically refers them to the service provider, and in most cases the issue is resolved—sometimes customers simply forget they initiated a charge. However, when the service provider is uncooperative, the next steps are unclear. Ofcom does not prominently advertise its complaint channels and does not pursue individual cases. In my experience, initiating a Small Claims action is the most effective approach. Most companies issue refunds upon receiving a Letter Before Claim, as they recognise they are unlikely to succeed in court.

Legal action should be taken against the service provider. The difficulty lies in identifying the correct entity. “Weezchat” is only a trading name. The website lists Digital Virgo Entertainment SAS, part of the Digital Virgo Group, yet none of these entities appear to be registered with Ofcom for the provision of phone‑paid services, as required by law.

My recommendation is to pursue action against Digital Virgo Group. Although based in France, the unlawful charges occurred in the UK and any purported contract is governed by UK law. Refunds should therefore be recoverable through the UK Small Claims process. In the unlikely event the company fails to comply with a judgment, the French authorities should assist.

It is also possible to pursue Three for losses, but be prepared for a lengthy process. The case of Shiva Ltd v Vodafone took seven years to conclude, ultimately in Shiva’s favour. Unfortunately, the judgment does not set a binding precedent, meaning a claim against Three would need to revisit the same arguments.

I am disappointed that Three appears to have reverted to previous practices. They still do not provide consumers with any mechanism to block third‑party charges, unlike the other major networks, all of which offer some form of third‑party charge restriction.

[Paddiewack]

Well I’ll say this much. At least you put forward your reasoning in an articulate and reasoned manner as opposed to some. I can only comment and speculate having no direct knowledge nor instances whereby I’ve been affected. To those that have I’m sure your points will gain traction and if you’re correct I wish you and them well. 

[scammed1]

Three is a totally fraud company. I hope customer leaves in droves now. They are allowing fraud apps like fuzeforge and wwezchat to scam its customers. They put customers in cricles and in cahoots with these fraud apps. I have now ended my contract with Three. Never again will do anything with them. Pathetic isnt the word

[Paddiewack]

You really do talk a load of old twonk!

[Udara]

I was also scammed by it. But Three is not helping me at all. The number they gave me said they cannot refund me. I am so disappointed. I’m not sure if someone has hacked me or what has happened. Do you know any authority I can report this scam to?”

[Naliahmed]

The same exact thing happened with me, i called them and they gave me their number to call and get a refund

[Neha]

Same problem i m facing with three

[Thurlestone]

I found they had done the same to me and I find it underhand of that organisation and three who should have stopped all membership without a confirmation from the three customer via a message. 

[DanielH57]

I just received a message from the three community stating I have registered with Furze Forge games, that it the first I have heard of them. And I have not registered with the games company or any other games company now or in the post, so it a scam.