“Favorable decisions for consumers are always welcome,” an official source from the regulator stated in a written response.
This statement follows a legal action initiated in 2018 by DECO against MEO, NOS, and Nowo (currently Digi), which, according to the consumer protection association, could result in the return of 40 million euros to customers due to price increases between 2016 and 2017.
The ruling from the first-instance court is not yet final, as the operators can appeal to the Court of Appeal and, subsequently, to the Supreme Court.
Regarding this matter, Anacom recalls having imposed corrective measures on the operators and initiated sanctioning processes.
“In connection with this issue, Anacom required MEO, NOS, Vodafone, and Nowo to adopt corrective measures that involved sending written communications to subscribers affected by contractual changes initiated by these operators. This was necessary when these operators failed to inform them in writing and simultaneously about contractual changes (implemented after the entry into force of Law No. 15/2016 of June 17) and the right to terminate contracts at no cost (even if subscribers were subject to loyalty periods or other commitments to stay), should they not accept the stated contractual changes,” it stated.
Additionally, “without prejudice to enforcing these corrective measures,” the regulator reminds that it proceeded with sanctioning processes against these operators.
These processes “are concluded, except for the one involving NOS,” which is in the Constitutional Court following an appeal filed by the company. Anacom had imposed a fine of 5.2 million euros, which the Competition, Regulation, and Supervision Court (TCRS) reduced to 4.2 million and the Court of Appeal to 3.5 million.
Anacom imposed a single fine of 6.7 million euros on MEO, which was reduced to 5.3 million by the TCRS and to 4.3 million by the Lisbon Court of Appeal.
For Vodafone, Anacom applied a single fine of 3.082 million euros, which TCRS reduced to 2.08 million euros, and the Court of Appeal to 2.024 million, while for NOWO, the fine was set at 664,000 euros, which the Court of Appeal adjusted to 230,000 euros.
The strategic advisor and institutional relations officer of DECO, Paulo Fonseca, explained to Lusa that the court deemed the operators’ communications regarding price increases during that period as null, as they did not correctly inform clients nor grant them the right to terminate contracts without penalty.
“The decision simply enforces what we have always advocated: it obligates the operators to refund the unduly charged amounts over approximately eight to ten months,” he emphasized.
DECO’s action against MEO’s owner (Altice), NOS, and Nowo arose after multiple consumer complaints, where customers were unaware of the exact amounts being charged and did not know they could terminate the contract without costs. Vodafone was not included since, according to DECO, “there is no record of increases for individual consumers” during that period.
The issue concerns the 2016 amendment to the electronic communications law, requiring operators to notify consumers whenever contracts, including pricing, were unilaterally changed, and to indicate the possibility of termination without penalties.
According to the association, between August and September 2016, clients began receiving notifications of increases significantly above inflation—almost 1,000% higher than the then unusually low rate.
Moreover, these communications lacked clear details on the exact amounts to be charged or the possibility of terminations without penalty. Shortly thereafter, prices were indeed increased without adequate consumer information or guidance on their rights, the official noted.
In response to this situation, DECO met with the operators, who maintained that their communication was accurate. Following a complaint to Anacom, the regulator concluded that the communication was inadequate and ordered it to be repeated but did not mandate the return of the amounts, prompting DECO’s legal action in 2018.
Contacted by Lusa, MEO and NOS have stated they disagree with the judicial decision and intend to appeal.
