The decision from the Court of First Instance is not yet final, as the operators can appeal to the Court of Appeal and, subsequently, to the Supreme Court.
As explained by Paulo Fonseca, the strategic and institutional relations advisor at Deco, the court deemed the operators’ communications about the price increases during this period null, for not properly informing clients nor granting them the right to terminate contracts without penalties.
“The decision simply enforces what we have always advocated: it compels the operators to refund the difference improperly charged over approximately eight to ten months,” he emphasized.
The action by Deco against Meo’s parent company (Altice), Nos, and Nowo (currently Digi) arose after multiple consumer complaints about unexpected charges and the lack of awareness about the possibility of terminating the contract without fees. Vodafone was not included, as Deco stated, “there are no records of increases to individual consumers” during that period.
The issue pertains to the 2016 amendment of the electronic communications law, which required operators to notify consumers of any unilateral contract changes, including price alterations, and inform them of the option to terminate without penalties.
According to the association, between August and September 2016, customers began receiving notifications of price increases dramatically exceeding inflation—nearly 1,000% higher than the low rates at the time. Moreover, these communications lacked clear details regarding the exact charges or the possibility of penalty-free contract termination. Shortly thereafter, prices rose without consumers being properly informed or guided about their rights, reported the representative.
Faced with the situation, Deco met with the operators, who maintained that their communications were correct. Following a complaint to Anacom, the regulator found the communication inadequate and instructed it to be repeated but did not mandate the refund of charges, prompting Deco’s legal action in 2018.
The association estimates around 1.6 million consumers could be affected by the decision, particularly those under loyalty periods.
The refund amount was calculated by multiplying “the undue monthly increase” by the number of months it applied, from the date of alteration until the court’s decision. This led to a total nearing 40 million euros—an amount Deco believes could rise as calculations are refined.
On average, each consumer might reclaim between 14 and 30 euros, plus accrued interest since 2018, increasing the total if the decision is upheld.
Paulo Fonseca expressed confidence in a favorable outcome for consumers and pointed out that even those who haven’t kept invoices could be compensated, as operators’ systems should retrieve the data.
When asked about potential discussions post-decision, he clarified that Deco has not directly spoken with the operators, with the matter being handled solely by lawyers in the judicial process.
He also highlighted the symbolic significance of the decision: “This is a good opportunity to make the market more reliable for consumers and may encourage them to no longer fear switching operators,” he concluded.
