The Rural Families association welcomed on Thursday the conviction of the operator Free by the Paris Court of Appeal for deceptive commercial practices regarding its offer which uses 5G technology. In 2021, legal action was taken against the operator over an advertisement published the same year in which it allegedly used misleading statements about its speed and territory coverage.
After a first decision issued in March 2022 by the Paris court which ruled in favor of free, the appeal court, appealed by Familles Rurales, found that Free had made misleading accusations. This decision is based in particular on the use of some frequency bands used by Free to implement 5G in the territory, which offer a more limited speed compared to the frequency band traditionally used for this technology.
Fine of 15 thousand euros
Free declined to comment. The Court therefore recognized that Free’s promise to offer “speeds up to three times faster than 4G” and to cover 40% of the French population was misleading,as was Free’s argument of allowing access “without costs additions” to 5G. .
The court therefore underlined that, if the price of the 5G mobile plan is not higher than that of a 4G plan, “access to 5G features is linked to the purchase of a new compatible mobile device”, and that consequently “the your subscription is necessarily subject to an additional cost”.
It sentenced Free to pay 15,000 euros in damages to the Familles Rurales, a sum well below what was requested by the association which had estimated these damages at over 1.3 million euros. In a press releasethe association, however, specified that a collective action is “being studied” to obtain compensation for “consumers who have had to purchase expensive phones to benefit from the unduly advertised speeds”. “Now it is indeed appropriate for the Free Mobile company to compensate its customers”, judges the association.
What are the potential impacts of the Paris Court of Appeal’s ruling on future telecommunications advertising practices?
Interview wiht Dr. Claire Martin, Telecommunications Expert
Published by Time.news
Editor: Welcome, Dr. Martin. Thank you for joining us today to discuss the recent ruling by the Paris Court of Appeal against Free regarding its deceptive commercial practices in advertising 5G technology. What was your initial reaction to the court’s decision?
Dr. Martin: Thank you for having me. My initial reaction is one of validation for consumer advocacy groups like Familles Rurales. The court’s ruling underscores the importance of clarity in telecommunications advertising, especially as we push towards advanced technologies like 5G.Misleading claims about speed and coverage can have important implications for consumers, especially in rural areas.
Editor: The case stemmed from an advertisement that claimed Free offered “speeds up to three times faster than 4G” and that the service would cover 40% of the French population. What are the specific implications of these findings for the telecommunications industry?
Dr. Martin: This ruling highlights that operators must be honest about their technology capabilities. In this instance, the court emphasized that Free’s use of certain frequency bands for 5G resulted in lower speeds than advertised.This serves as a warning to other operators: misleading claims can not only lead to legal repercussions but also damage consumer trust.The industry must ensure that marketing is aligned with actual service capabilities.
Editor: The court fined Free €15,000, substantially less than the €1.3 million sought by Familles Rurales. How do you view this in the broader context of penalties for misleading advertising in telecoms?
Dr. Martin: The fine,while a step in the right direction,raises questions about deterrence. If fines are not proportional to the profits made from misleading advertisements, then companies may not feel adequately discouraged from continuing such practices. The industry needs a more robust regulatory framework that imposes significant penalties for deceptive practices to protect consumers effectively.
Editor: Familles Rurales mentioned a potential collective action for consumers forced to purchase expensive phones to access 5G. How critically important is this step in holding operators accountable?
Dr. Martin: Collective action can be a powerful tool for consumer protection. Many individuals may feel powerless in the face of large corporations. By coming together, consumers can amplify their voices and pressure companies to take obligation for their misleading marketing. It also raises awareness about the broader issue of how 5G services are marketed and delivered, encouraging consumers to demand better practices from telecom operators.
Editor: In light of this ruling, what practical advice would you offer consumers who are navigating the complexities of 5G services?
Dr. Martin: Consumers should always scrutinize marketing claims and do their research before signing up for new services. It’s beneficial to read independent reviews and seek confirmation of advertised speeds and coverage, especially in rural areas where service variability can be significant. Additionally, consumers should not hesitate to voice their concerns to regulatory bodies or consider joining collective actions if they feel misled.
Editor: what changes do you foresee in the telecommunications landscape as an inevitable result of this case?
Dr. Martin: I believe we will see increased scrutiny on telecom marketing practices. This ruling could pave the way for stricter guidelines on how 5G services are presented to consumers. Furthermore, it may encourage other jurisdictions to adopt similar stances on deceptive advertising, which would ultimately benefit consumers globally by promoting clearer communication about service capabilities.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Martin, for sharing your insights today. your expertise is invaluable in understanding the implications of this significant legal decision.
Dr. Martin: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial that we continue to discuss these developments as they shape the future of telecommunications.
