Recently ordered to pay a substantial fine, the operator is at the center of several cases related to its business practices. These events have significant repercussions for its reputation and raise important questions about the practices of certain companies in the telecommunications sector.
A substantial fine imposed by the DGCCRF
On December 2nd, the French Directorate General for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) announced that Free Mobile had to pay a fine of €2.2 million for “deceptive business practices.” This decision is linked to a specific incident in which Free Mobile canceled several phone orders without reimbursing customers “within a reasonable timeframe,” according to an official statement.
The period in question extends from August 17, 2020, to January 4, 2022. Resolving this issue also included Free Mobile’s commitment to cease these practices and amend its terms and conditions, notably by removing a controversial clause allowing for the offsetting of amounts charged against amounts owed to consumers. This action aims to protect customer rights and ensure greater commercial transparency.
Accusations of misleading communication about 5G
Furthermore, this is not the first time Free Mobile has faced accusations of deceptive practices. Late last week, the Familles Rurales association won an appeal against the operator regarding its communication surrounding its 5G network. The association had filed a complaint, claiming that Free Mobile misrepresented the performance of its 5G network when marketing its initial offers.
The Paris Court of Appeal ruled that Free’s advertising claiming speeds up to three times faster than 4G was misleading. Furthermore, the claim that 40% of the French population was covered by 5G was called into question. It was demonstrated that the majority of the frequency bands used by Free were 700 MHz frequencies, which are less efficient than the 3.5 GHz frequencies generally associated with true 5G service.
Economic impact on consumers
The case brought by Familles rurales concerns not only technical performance but also potential economic harm suffered by consumers . Free Mobile had announced that there would be “no additional cost” for accessing 5G. However, many consumers had to buy new, often more expensive, 5G-compatible smartphones.
The consumer association argued that this represented an unjustified additional cost that should be compensated. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the association on this point, thus obligating Free to compensate some of its customers. This underscores the importance for consumers to verify advertising claims and understand the potential additional costs associated with new technologies.
Legal dispute with Orange
This isn’t the only monumental legal battle Free Mobile is embroiled in regarding 5G. Earlier this year, another case was heard in the Paris Commercial Court, pitting Free against Orange. In this instance, Free claimed to have the largest 5G network in France, covering over 94% of the country. However, Orange disputed this claim, arguing that it was misleading.
However, this time the court ruled in favor of Free Mobile, finding that the operator’s advertising campaign was not misleading. This episode illustrates the complexity and competitiveness of the telecommunications market in France, where each operator seeks to claim a share of technological and marketing leadership.
That said, the current situation highlights the fragility of marketing arguments when they are not based on solid foundations. Consumers expect accurate and truthful statements, and regulatory authorities ensure that these expectations are met. The Free Mobile case serves as a reminder of the risks companies face when they opt for aggressive marketing practices without ensuring complete transparency.