PRESS RELEASE

MOBILE TELEPHONY: ANTITRUST CALLS FOR GUARANTEE OF IMMEDIATE PORTABILITY OF TELEPHONE NUMBER AND REMAINING CREDIT WHEN CONDITIONS ALTERED UNILATERALLY

No more pricing variations via SMS: these violate the Communications Code. Unilateral changes without justification are an unacceptable imposition.

Users of mobile phones who are informed of unilateral pricing changes must be allowed immediate portability of their number to another operator, along with the residual credit.

This was emphasized by the Italian Competition Authority which, at its meeting on 10 May 2007, examined the numerous complaints received from customers of Wind who had been advised by a terse SMS of an unrequested move to another less advantageous tariff plan. The Authority decided to forward the consumers’ complaints to Agcom for interventions within its jurisdiction and requested Chairman Antonio Catricalà to write to the Industry Minister Pierluigi Bersani to inform him of the questions raised by these consumers.

The Antitrust Authority points out that the Electronic Communications Code gives users the right to withdraw from a contract without penalty when notified of proposed changes to contractual conditions: the notification of a tariff plan change sent by SMS and with no indication as to the possibility of exercising such right would seem to violate existing regulations and may be punishable under the law.
The Authority obviously accepts the right of companies to offer new and more expensive pricing plans but users who then wish to change phone company must be guaranteed immediate portability of their telephone number and the maintenance of their remaining credit. In these cases, the Antitrust Authority requests that Agcom provide a special arrangement for immediate portability.
Finally, the Authority emphasizes that the message sent by Wind did not even mention any reason to justify the telephone operator’s changes to the pricing plan. If unilateral changes were foreseen in the general contract conditions, there may be a case for assessing whether such contractual clauses may be considered oppressive. Based on the Consumer Code, consumer associations may request the courts to prohibit the use of clauses deemed oppressive.


Rome, 14 May 2007