• Increasing your subscription fee one month after contract conclusion? Vectra was increasing its customers' fees, citing the inflation rate.
• The clauses whereunder Vectra changed its fees were abusive.
• The President of UOKiK has imposed a fine of over PLN 68 million on the company.

Contract modifications in the course of their validity period, on the basis of non-transparent criteria, are illegal. This was the practice complained about by consumers of the Vectra mobile operator. The President of UOKiK, following the proceedings conducted, issued a decision whereunder he prohibited to use abusive contractual provisions and imposed a fine of more than PLN 68 million (PLN 68 457 916) on the company.

Amendments, amendments, amendments

In September 2022, Vectra started to use, in its contracts with consumers, some clauses authorising it to amend the applicable terms and conditions, that is, to introduce increases and some new fees which to date had not been stipulated in contracts. They might be connected with the growth of the inflation rate or might concern a range of other vague circumstances, such as increase in outlays related to the service performed, a significant extension of improvement of functionality. The provisions were formulated vaguely while consumers had no opportunity to predict their impact on the amount of their bills. The clauses gave the company a free choice on whether and when the fees were to be increased; in addition, they failed to include an option of being reduced even on the basis of the same circumstances.

As the President of UOKiK found, Vectra had been using the challenged clauses and had been modifying its contracts on the basis of a change to the inflation rate. This was how it shifted all responsibility for the changing economic standing onto consumers. Signals received by UOKiK prove that simultaneously the company offered new customers to conclude their contracts under the previous terms and conditions. In some cases, as early as within the short time after the contract conclusion, customers found out about the increase. You can read that:

“It is unacceptable for me that the contract was concluded from 1 December 2023 and only after 3 months since March 2024 the fee would be index-linked. If Vectra sees an increase of its operational costs, then the price for the service should higher from the very beginning as during the last 3 months there have been no material economic events that would affect the price increase”.

“I took my decision on the basis of offers in January, I accepted the fee which would be binding for me for two incoming years, to be possibly index-linked after 12 months in line with the information of the National Bank of Poland on the inflation level. But the index-linking was made on 26.01.2024!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 days later along with the information that since 1 March a new pricelist will apply, and which is different from the one I have chosen 3 days ago”.

Customers additionally pointed out that contracts were amended by using an all-year a few-dozen inflation rate even if a specific contract was not in force at that time and they asked: “Why couldn't the company prepare an offer taking into account the projected inflation for last year without such 'games'?”

Another consumer summarised:

“If I was informed that Vectra was to increase its price by a full annual contract rate only after few months, I wouldn’t sign it and would choose a competitive offer”.

What is important is that those who did not accept the new terms and conditions and wanted to rescind the contract, had to accept some financial consequences for early contract termination. The abusive clauses stipulated that each and every rate increase, even the smallest one, allowed Vectra to increase its price. This was not the end of Vectra’s entitlements. Parallelly, the company was entitled to increase the price for similar reasons, for example, by substantiating it with the increase of costs or outlays related to the service rendered.

What will the price be like?

- When concluding a contract as consumers, we should know how much we will pay for a specific service. The price is a key element affecting decision on contract conclusion, it should be communicated to us in a clear and transparent manner. If an entrepreneur is tempting consumers with an attractive offer in order to increase the price right after the contract conclusion on the basis of a rate from the time before the contract conclusion, then the clauses allowing it may not be considered objective and fair - says Tomasz Chróstny, the President of UOKiK.

Fixed-term contracts should not be subject to any unilateral changes to their essential elements - for example, the price. On the other hand, changes in the price of the service of a contract concluded for an indefinite time may be subject to the relevant provisions provided for as early as before the conclusion of the contract. At the same time, consumers should have the right to opt out in such situations without incurring additional financial charges.

The President of UOKiK, Tomasz Chróstny imposed a fine of over PLN 68 million on Vectra. As soon as the decision becomes legally valid, the company will be additionally obliged to refund to its consumers the value of the already-paid subscription fee increases. Moreover, it will inform on its website and Facebook of the discontinuation of using the abusive clauses. Specific information related to the increase for consumers have been included in the decision.

The provisions which have been validly considered prohibited will be invalid and will not be binding for the consumers. They should be treated in the way as if they have never been inserted in the contract concluded.

The Electronic Communications Law

On 10 November 2024, the Electronic Communications Law entered into force entailing a range of modifications which will enhance consumer protection on the telecommunications service market. Greater transparency and new solutions will help protect consumers from unjustified fees and unsolicited services. Some of the modifications relate to modification clauses, too.

Key changes:

• No more contracts concluded in a hurry. New regulations will prohibit to conclude contracts on telecommunication services during unsolicited visits at consumer’s premises. Such contracts will be invalid.
• Limit on the value of damages for a service provider. If a contract is terminated by a subscriber, the damages for the supplier may not exceed the value of the outstanding subscription fees.
• Change of terms and conditions in fixed-term contracts only in extraordinary situations. The supplier will be able to change the terms and conditions in fixed-term contracts only if there exist some objective circumstances beyond their control and which could not have been foreseen (for example, loss of infrastructure necessary for service provision as a consequence of a fire).
• Clear rules for amendments to fixed-term contracts. Amendments to fixed-term contracts will be admissible only if such an option has been provided for in the contract.
• Greater control of the optional account charging service. This service may be launched only upon a relevant approval issued by the subscriber. Each and every charge of an account with fees for additional services (games, lotteries, music playing while waiting for a phone call) will require additional approval. A consumer will be able to choose an amount-related threshold for this service.