A informs, this Thursday, that it imposed a fine of 1.4 million euros on MEO for violating the rules on the conclusion, suspension and end of contracts, and that the operator has already filed an appeal.
A, which imposed this fine for “violations of the rules applicable to the conclusion, suspension and termination of contracts at the initiative of subscribers provided for in the Electronic Communications Law [LCE] and in the decision of this authority regarding the procedures required for the termination of contracts, at the initiative of subscribers, relating to the provision of public networks or electronic communications services accessible to the public”.
The regulator states that “MEO has already filed a legal challenge against Anacom’s decision with the Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court“.
What is at stake? Anacom says that “MEO made the submission of contractual termination requests at the initiative of customers subject to prior receipt of a call from the retention line, without which customers could not initiate the contract termination process, and which it did not indicate in the confirmation documents termination of the contract, specific information about the charges arising from the termination of the contract“.
In particular, he adds, information “about the costs at which customers would incur if they did not return the rented equipment, and there are cases in which incorrect information was also provided regarding the obligation to pay charges for early termination of the contract, as there is no ongoing loyalty period“, he says.
There were also “situations in which Meo asked customers to present elements that were unnecessary to confirm the termination of the contract and others in which the company did not inform customers of all the means they had at their disposal to submit requests for contract termination”.
Anacom continues, stating that it was found “that Meo did not confirm, within the deadline it had for that purpose, several complaints and requests for termination of contracts presented by customers, and did not request the sending of additional necessary elements within the foreseen deadline for this purpose.”
is “conducts placed unjustified and unacceptable obstacles in the procedures for terminating contracts at the initiative of subscribers, which made it difficult, delayed or led to the withdrawal of processes to change service providers, thus hindering the development of competition in the electronic communications market“.
The rules established by Anatel, on March 9, 2012, “aim, on the one hand, to promote competition and freedom of choice for end users in relation to the operators they contract and, on the other hand, to facilitate the exercise of subscribers’ rights termination of contracts and consequent change of operator”.
These rules also prohibit “the creation of conditions for terminating contracts that are disproportionate and procedures that are excessively onerous and disincentivize subscriber mobility, ensuring the possibility for end users to choose the operator that best suits them, thus being able to benefit yourself from more attractive offers in a truly competitive market”.
The behaviors adopted by Meo/Altice Portugal “are especially serious as they result in non-compliance with a legitimate order from ANACOM that was regularly communicated to it, putting into question the very regulation of the market in which it operates”, highlights the regulator.
Situations were also verified in which the rules legally established for the conclusion of contracts for the provision of electronic communications services with consumers, through telephone calls, were not complied with, rules that require, when the contact initiative is from the company, that the consumer sends the signed contractual proposal or gives written consent to such conclusion.
“The matter related to remote contracting and the termination of contracts at the initiative of customers is one of the most complained about topics in the sector and will continue to deserve, from Anacom, very close monitoring to ensure compliance with the applicable rules”, he concludes. .
