FACUA has impugned Movistar and Vodafone at raising the costs of their rates without legitimizing it on “substantial reasons”, as set up by law. The objections have been documented with the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the customer insurance specialists of the 17 independent networks. Since last January 12, Movistar started to apply an increment in Movistar Fusion rates from a few euros for fiber TV bundles and from seven to eight for those that incorporate satellite TV. Vodafone, as far as concerns, has expanded the cost of its Mini, Extra, Unlimited, Unlimited Initial, and Unlimited Extra rates by three euros for bundles joined with fiber and by 1.50 for each extra versatile line.

The affiliation demonstrates that the increment in the paces of these two organizations without legitimizing it in “substantial reasons” suggests an infringement of article 5 of Royal Decree 899/2009, of May 22, which supports the letter of privileges of the client of electronic correspondences administrations. The said guideline sets up the privilege of clients to get the help under the conditions concurred with the administrator. Besides, Article 9 directs that “electronic interchanges administration agreements may just be altered for legitimate reasons explicitly accommodated in the agreement.”

In this sense, FACUA thinks that the reasons set forward by the two organizations can’t be considered “legitimate” nor do they make it conceivable to make a one-sided alteration in their conditions. The affiliation scrutinizes that Vodafone has just announced that the cost increment happens in light of its longing to offer “more prominent advantages”, which convert into limitless information for its versatile lines that have not been mentioned by clients.

Movistar, as indicated by FACUA ‘s adaptation, has restricted itself to telling its clients that the expansion in rates is because of an asserted “increment in the costs committed to measuring the organization”, to “furnish it with better inclusion” that permits “to have a phenomenal network in the media communications area, where Movistar assumes a fundamental part “. Notwithstanding, it has not demonstrated what those supposed expenses are or how they influence the administrations gave to clients influenced by the ascent.

Additionally, FACUA censures that the specific states of Movistar FusiĆ³n set up a proviso that expresses that the organization “may change the conditions set up in the agreement and specifically the cost thereof” because of the “increment in expenses of the business area in which it is available Movistar and that bring about inclusion, like the organization or the attributes of the assistance gave “, among others.

Nonetheless, FACUA thinks that the organization must keep up the vital framework to guarantee assistance under the quality conditions concurred in the agreement. Consequently, the increment in costs that the organization should accept to follow its commitments or the increment in the speculations it makes to offer administrations with higher advantages to new customers can’t be considered as “legitimate reasons” for the adjustment of the rates for the extension of its foundation or the improvement of its situation on the lookout.

UNREASONABLE TERMS

The affiliation comprehends that the increments forced by the broadcast communications organizations meet the prerequisites to be considered “injurious provisions” as per article 82 of Royal Legislative Decree 1/2007, of November 16, which supports the overhauled text of the Law General for the Defense of Consumers and Users and other correlative laws, which characterizes as such those that “tight spot the agreement to the desire of the business” and “decide the absence of correspondence in the agreement.” Also, article 85.3 demonstrates that those that “hold for the business the forces of translation or one-sided adjustment of the agreement” are oppressive.

Then again, article 1,256 of the Civil Code shows that “the legitimacy and satisfaction of agreements can’t be left to the carefulness of one of the contracting parties”, while article 1,258 states that “contracts are closed by simple assent, and from that point forward they oblige, consistency with what was explicitly concurred as well as all the outcomes that, as indicated by their inclination, are following acceptable confidence, use, and the law ”

The affiliation, subsequently, has reprimanded the two organizations before the 17 self-sufficient networks and before the General Directorate of Consumption of the Ministry of Consumption. All self-governing buyer organizations have forces to force monetary authorizations on organizations for announced inconsistencies.