Firm Action on Behalf of Subscribers: NMHH is investigating the legality of the contractual amendments planned by two mobile operators as of July

The authority expects the operators to cooperate

Published: 11 June 2015

null

NMHH has launched an ex officio general administrative supervisory proceeding against Magyar Telekom Nyrt. and Telenor Zrt.. The proceeding was triggered by the suspicion that laws had been violated on a number of accounts by the planned contractual amendments of the two mobile operators expected to take effect as of 1 July and increase charges. The Authority expects the operators to cooperate but, for the purpose of protecting subscribers, has forbidden the execution of the contractual amendments as included in the published proposal until the proceeding is concluded. Telekom has already informed NMHH that they plan to take a number of actions as a result of the investigation.

On 20 May and 10 June, respectively, NMHH launched ex officio general administrative supervisory proceedings against Magyar Telekom Nyrt. and Telenor Zrt. to investigate the legality of the bilateral contractual amendment proposal relevant to their mobile services. The two mobile operators have informed a number of their subscribers about their plan to increase charges as of 1 July.

The Authority began the investigation because of its suspicion that the contractual amendment proposal, its publication and the planned amendments violate the laws on electronic communication on a number of accounts. NMHH will check if the operators have informed their subscribers about the planned changes in due time, used the appropriate communication channels, and notified their customers in a clear and transparent manner with the available options outlined. NMHH has no power to investigate the extent of the increase in charges; thus retail pricing is not within the scope of this investigation.

The operators plan to implement the changes by way of a bilateral contractual amendment, which, as communicated by the operators, would mean that unless the relevant subscribers fail to reject the operator’s proposal within 15 days from the day it was communicated, the operators will consider the proposal accepted by the subscribers. Pursuant to the applicable laws, however, subscribers may also decide not to accept the proposal, in which case their contract remains in effect with its previous content. As the planned amendments affect the majority of the subscribers of the two operators and because there is a real danger that upon these amendments taking effect subscribers would suffer a disadvantage that they could not remedy at a later time or only with great difficulties, the Authority issued a temporary order to the operators and forbade them to execute the contractual amendments as of 1 July.

After the proceeding was launched, Magyar Telekom announced that they were planning a number of actions to resolve the issues communicated by the Authority. In that regard, the organisation is still studying the commitments made by the operator.

In order to protect subscriber interests, NMHH strives to reach a conclusion that is the most favourable to subscribers and also points out that the launching of the proceeding does not mean that the operators did, in fact, commit any violations. The investigation is still in progress.

About bilateral contractual amendments:

The currently effective laws basically allow both parties, including the operator, to propose bilateral contractual amendments. If, however, the operator proposes such an amendment, specific requirements must be fulfilled in terms of the deadline and method of notification to the subscribers. Accordingly, the primary method of notification to the subscribers is the annex to the invoice or, in the case of electronic invoices, the invoice notification email or text message. If, however, the operator fails to send such an invoice letter to the subscriber or cannot have the notification delivered with the next invoice by the designated deadline, the operator may deliver the notification by regular mail, email or, in specific cases as stipulated by the law, by SMS or any other similar direct delivery method.

In all cases, the contractual amendment proposal must be transparent and easy to understand and it must clearly specify the provisions of the contract to change upon acceptance of the proposal as well as the actual changes. The proposal must also clearly communicate the deadline for the subscriber’s decision and the method of communication of that decision to the operator regarding the acceptance or rejection of the operator’s proposal. As a rule of thumb, subscribers must communicate their acceptance of the proposal by expressed, active conduct. Therefore, the lack of objection by the subscriber alone does not qualify as acceptance. If, however, the subscriber and the operator had previously entered into such an agreement, the customer’s failure to make a statement may be sufficient in cases involving changes to charges provided such an agreement is incorporated in the individual subscription contract.