What changes in the contracts with the mobile operators... Maya Manolova to FACTS

From the civil platform Izpravi se.BG submitted another 3,000 pages of evidence to the filed collective claims against the unequal clauses in the contracts of the mobile operators in the Sofia City Court. Why is it necessary, what follows…. Maya Manolova, the chairman of Stand up. BG, spoke to FACTS.

- Ms. Manolova, after the next indexation of the tariff plans of the mobile operators, you filed several lawsuits. What's going on?
- From Izpravi se.BG we filed collective claims against the three mobile operators with a request to cancel the unequal clauses in the contracts and general terms and conditions. These are the unilateral price indexations every year, but also all kinds of penalties for early termination of a contract - for returning discounts for subscription plans, for buying devices, for providing equipment, including an 8% forced collection fee - i.e. to give you to a collector. We also submitted another three thousand pages of evidence, and the legal battle continues.

- Didn't the agreement that the mobile operators concluded with the Consumer Protection Commission solve the problem in favor of the citizens?
- The agreement is dust in people's eyes, a dummy. It allows a user to cancel a contract without penalty in the event of a unilateral increase in the prices of mobile services, but, we ask - where will the citizens go? With which mobile operator, given that all three telecoms raise prices at the same time, by the same percentages? We are in the conditions of an oligopoly, the actions of telecoms seem to be synchronized. There is no way in the 21st century we can live without phones, send messages with carrier pigeons, right…

- Then what is the solution?
- Once again, I called on the deputies to protect consumers by changing the law - to prohibit unilateral indexation in fixed-term contracts. Since all three telecoms conclude two-year contracts with consumers, it is appropriate for them not to touch the prices for this period - to have assessed the commercial risk.

- Which penalties in contracts fall and which remain?
- The agreement signed between the mobile operators and KZP cancels only the penalty for termination of the contract by the user in the case of unilateral indexation. All other penalties remain - for payment of three monthly fees in case of unilateral termination of the contract before the expiry of the term or in case of non-payment of amounts due, in which case the user is obliged to refund all discounts from subscription plans and from the price of mobile devices, refund the full amount for equipment provided that is not returned to “commercial” type etc. We have challenged all of these penalties in the class actions and are urging the court to strike them down as unfair terms. This is the only way for citizens to be protected because the institutions are apathetic. In fact, the very agreement signed by the mobile operators with KZP was under the pressure of the court case that we brought from Stand Up. BG in order to create the impression that they take into account the users and the clauses for indexation and penalties to remain in the contracts. But we will fight to the end, the only solution is a judicial annulment of the unequal clauses, because the institutions protect the economically strong.

- In what period should the changes in the contracts be implemented?
- The changes agreed with the CCP - from January 1, 2025. But, like I said, they won't change anything for users. Citizens will only be protected if a court declares their clauses unfair, or if lawmakers change the law to completely ban unilateral indexing on fixed-term contracts, which are all telecom contracts. Each of the three telecoms generates around and over 1 billion. BGN annual turnover. Their operating profit is 30-40%. They have no reason to justify indexation with increased costs when they generate such predatory profits. In reality, indexation for the last three years brings them a 30% increase - or, calculate for yourself, between 200 and 300 million additional profit.

- Do you expect there to be a division between the mobile operators themselves, because now running away from one, the user goes to another that applies the same conditions...
- We are in an obvious and proven oligopoly. There is no real competition in the telecommunications services market. The three telecoms raise their prices at the same time every year and by a similar percentage. We cannot expect them to give up their speculative gains on their own. Therefore, active intervention of regulators and the state is needed to support consumers. All the MPs who called for class actions and their associated consumer organizations - none of them ended up filing such cases. Only from Izpravi se.BG have we filed our claims and are fighting for the annulment of the unequal clauses in the contracts. If MPs want to be helpful, let them make legislative changes and ban unilateral indexation by law.

- Where are the regulators in the country who are supposed to protect the rights of consumers?
- As long as the regulators are seen as a pie, which we wonder whether to divide it equally or fraternally, then they cannot work. Because they are not expected to protect consumers, but to carry out the party orders of those who sent them there. In the KZP, we saw that the mechanical replacement of one chairman by another does not lead to anything. Since the unilateral price indexation began, 3 presidents of the KZP have changed and we have not seen anyone to protect consumers. Therefore, the ambitions of the “assembly” for a mechanical change of regulators will not lead to anything as long as they continue to put party henchmen and “ladybugs” instead of independent civilian experts.

- Why did the CPC refuse to use its legal powers and stand on the side of the consumers and not declare the clauses null and void?
- Because they are clearly not on the side of the consumers, but are substitute lackeys of the monopolists, multinational companies and the powerful of the day. It is not possible that in a letter three years ago the predecessor of the CCP described why the unilateral indexation clauses were inequitable and then for three years the commission did nothing to repeal them. Not to file a single collective action, not to detect and stop unfair clauses and not to protect consumers not only with telecoms, but also with electricity, water, heating, quick loan companies, with collectors, etc.< /p>