Dear readers,
as you may have suspected already, the CJEU went back in session this past week and delivered a good number of judgments and opinions of interest to consumer law aficionados. While other cases may deserve complex scrutiny, hereby a short notice on a less complicated, but still somewhat impactful, decision: Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband v Telefónica Germany.
The case concerns the interpretation of Regulation 2015/ which introduced "Roam like at home" (RLAH) as the rule within Europe, effectively ending roaming charges in the EU for most telecom customers. Unlike other companies, Telefonica Germany (OZ) had not immediately transferred all its customers to a RLAH regime on the day (15 June 2017) the regime was supposed to enter into effect. In particular, customers who, prior to that date, had acquired a special roaming package with the company were not automatically transferred: instead, they were asked to opt in for RLAH - lacking such express action, their previous contractual conditions were kept in place.
Offering specific roaming packages tailoring to the needs of particular groups of consumers is allowed after 15 June 2017 under art 6e(3) of the regulation, providing that roaming providers may offer, and roaming customers may deliberately choose, a roaming tariff other than the one offered under RLAH terms.
In practice, Telefonica maintained that an invite to customers to opt in RLAH was enough to guarantee that staying with the alternative tariff was a deliberate choice as required by the provision; the Verbraucherzentrale disagreed and the CJEU concurred in such disagreement.
The court considered the possible advantages and disadvantages of opt-in and opt-out for introducing RLAH and concluded that nothing - from the letter of the regulation to the intention of abolishing roaming charges - could be read to suggest an interpretation of deliberately not requiring RLAH to be the default option in case of consumer inaction.
The fact that no AG opinion was submitted on this case suggests not many sleepless nights were required to reach this conclusion, which may or may not open a complicated file for Telefonica: since the original proceedings were an injunction against the company's implementation of the Regulation, it is unclear whether other remedies will be sought.
