Poland - Decision by UOKiK: nc+

ITI Neovision broke the law by launching „nc+” offer and informing about its terms and conditions – decided the President of UOKiK and consequently ordered to eliminate without delay the results of contested practice towards its subscribers. Its clients may still use the agreements based on current terms. The company is to fulfil the information obligations and is imposed a fine of nearly PLN 11 mln for violating collective consumer interests.

The administrative proceedings instituted by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection on 2nd April was a reply to the information frequently reported by subscribers of “nc+” offer, consisting in the change of terms in contracts for the provision of access services to satellite television programmes as regards the price of service, programme package and the period of binding the contract.

The examination of the collected evidence revealed that ITI Neovision had broken the law by changing unilaterally the contracts concluded with subscribers of “n”television. The Office took the stance that the content of subscribers’ agreements did not give grounds for making such a change. Additionally, the company acted against social norms when informing consumers about it, because the information was misleading. Furthermore, unilateral change of contract terms was against social norms as it covered agreements for the specified time as well.

Added to that, the President of UOKiK contested the way of informing consumers about the change in contract terms as well as insufficiently long period of notice regarding the automatic switch to “nc+” offer. According to the Office, the wording of the letter to subscribers and the way of presenting new contract terms were misleading to consumers. Even most observant consumers might have missed the information on the change of conditions, being a part of letter presenting mainly the programme offer of the new operator. Consequently, they could not make an informed decision when selecting the most favourable offer. Insufficiently long deadlines for deciding on the new agreement were also contrary to law. Whenever a consumer failed to respond, the old offer was automatically replaced by the new one, which was unlawful.

Having conducted the proceedings, the President of UOKiK decided that ITI Neovision violated collective consumer interests by launching “nc+” offer. By such conduct, the company infringed, inter alia, the rule of loyal behaviour when approaching consumers by a contractor, respecting agreements and fair performance of obligations. Bearing in mind the violation of interests of different groups of consumers, the President of UOKiK obliged the company to eliminate the results of contested practice without delay, including numerous information activities depending on the position of ITI Neovision subscribers, as follows:

• subscribers who did not terminate contracts: the company is obliged to inform consumers that television services will be provided on current terms till the expiry of the binding specified time agreement or till they select “nc+” offer;
• subscribers who terminated contracts: the company is obliged to inform consumers that they may cancel their contract termination by 31stMay. If they do so, the television services will be provided based on terms binding prior to the contract termination till its expiry or till they select “nc+” offer;
• subscribers who chose “nc+” offer: the company is obliged to inform consumers that they may withdraw from the selected nc+ offer by 31stMay. The television services will be provided then based on conditions binding prior to the selection of “nc+” offer, till contract expiry or till they select “nc+” offer.

Moreover, the President of UOKiK ordered to place the decision content on the website of ncplus.pl. For the infringement of collective consumer interests, the Office fined ITI Neovision with PLN 10 mln 841 thousand. When specifying the volume of fine, it was taken into account that the company had ceased to apply the prohibited practice and had taken relevant measures to eliminate its negative effects. The decision is not final, it may be appealed against to the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection.