When ‘Unlimited’ really means LIMITED!

In 2012 Melita used the term ‘Unlimited’ to promote certain Melita services.  However, in reality the services were limited

This case relates to the contestation by Melita Limited (‘Melita’) of a decision taken by the Director General (Consumer Affairs) within the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (MCCAA) whereby the Director General imposed an one off administrative fine of 5,000 euros and a daily fine of 120 euros on Melita – an electronic communications service provider – because of advertisements which the Director General considered to be misleading. This contestation was filed before the Competition and Consumer Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). Subsequently the Malta Communications Authority (MCA) intervened in the proceedings before the Tribunal.[1] Melita has since lodged an appeal before the Court of Appeal (Superior) contesting the Tribunal’s decision. The intervention and decision of the Director General (DG) came about after a complaint made by the Malta Communications Authority in 2012 with the DG whereby the MCA argued that advertisements by Melita promoting some of its products as being ‘unlimited’ were factually incorrect and misleading and therefore constituted unfair commercial practices and were in breach of the Consumer Affairs Act.[2]   Melita subsequently contested the DG’s decision including the fines imposed before the Tribunal. One of the main arguments made by Melita that any ‘limitations’ on the service were because of the application of fair usage policies intended to ensure that the use of the service does not impact other subscribers negatively. The Tribunal rejected the arguments by Melita noting that in the advertisements produced as evidence the words ‘unlimited’ and ‘without limits’ were written in prominent fonts whereas the words indicating that ‘terms and conditions apply’ or that ‘an acceptable usage policy’ applies, were written in very small fonts and placed in a corner of the advert. The Tribunal said that while it does appreciate the purpose behind the acceptable usage policy and the fair usage policy, Melita cannot advertise a service without limits when in reality limits exist, this irrespective of the number of clients impacted by such limits. The Tribunal decided not to uphold Melita’s claims, confirming the decisions taken by the Director General as per his decision of the 11th October 2012.

[1] The Tribunal is composed of a judge who presides and two lay technical members.

[1] The MCA as a ‘qualified entity’ under the Consumer Affairs Act, made a formal request to the Director General requesting him to issue a compliance order against Melita since it contended that Melita was acting in breach of Part VIII of the said law which regulated unfair commercial practices.

 

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*