Legality
The Open Rights Group (ORG) raised questions about Phorm's legality and asked for clarification of how the service would work. FIPR has argued that Phorm's online advert system is illegal in the UK. Nicholas Bohm, general counsel at FIPR, said: "The need for both parties to consent to interception in order for it to be lawful is an extremely basic principle within the legislation, and it cannot be lightly ignored or treated as a technicality." His open letter to the Information Commissioner has been published on the FIPR web site.
The Conservative peer Lord Northesk has questioned whether the UK government is taking any action on the targeted advertising service offered by Phorm in the light of the questions about its legality under the Data Protection and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Acts.
On 9 April 2008, the Information Commissioner's Office ruled that Phorm would only be legal under UK law if it were an opt-in service. The Office stated it will closely monitor the testing and implementation of Phorm, in order to ensure data protection laws are observed.
The UK Home Office has indicated that Phorm's proposed service is only legal if users give explicit consent. The Office itself became a subject of controversy when emails between it and Phorm were released. The emails showed that the company edited a draft legal interpretation by the Office, and that an official responded "If we agree this, and this becomes our position do you think your clients and their prospective partners will be comforted." Liberal Democrat spokeswoman on Home Affairs, Baroness Sue Miller, considered it an act of collusion: "The fact the Home Office asks the very company they are worried is actually falling outside the laws whether the draft interpretation of the law is correct is completely bizarre."
The Register reported in May 2008 that Phorm's logo strongly resembled that of an unrelated UK company called Phorm Design. They quoted the smaller company's owner, Simon Griffiths: "I've had solicitors look at it and they say we'd have to go to court. obviously a big player with a lot of clout. I'm a small design agency in Sheffield that employs three people."
Until 21 September 2010, Phorm's Webwise service also shared the same name as BBC WebWise.
Monitoring of the Phorm website using a Website change detection service allerted interested parties to changes on 21 September 2010. Phorm's website had been edited to remove references to the word 'Webwise'. Phorm's Webwise product had become 'PhormDiscover'.
The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) Trade Marks and Designs Registration Office of the European Union website CTM-Online database lists Phorm's application for use of the 'Webwise' trade mark name. The British Broadcasting Corporation is listed as an opponent on grounds of 'Likelihood of confusion'. The City of London based legal firm Bristows wrote to the OHIM on 22 September 2010, withdrawing the BBC's opposition saying, "The British Broadcasting Corporation have instructed us to request the withdrawal of the above Opposition No. B11538985"
On 28 October 2010, BT removed the Webwise pages from their company website although it was not until November 12, 2010 that all pages had finally been confirmed as removed by forum contributors at the campaign group 'NoDPI.org'
As of 22 June 2012 (2012-06-22), VirginMedia have not removed their Phorm & Webwise faqs pages from their customer-news section.
Read more about this topic: Phorm, Proposed Advertisement Service