The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Commission for Consumer Protection that BTC AD (Vivacom) had engaged in an unfair commercial practice when concluding contracts offered by telephone for services with promotional discounts. The company had failed to apply the discounts on time, explaining that a “technical error” had occurred.
In one case, a telecom representative called a subscriber to offer renewal of an expiring mobile service contract with a 50% reduction in the monthly fee for the first six months. After signing the contract and receiving the first bill, the customer discovered that the promised discount had not been applied. In a complaint to the Commission, the customer said that staff at the operator’s office had explained that discounts were entered automatically and that the omission was a software error. In response to a written complaint, however, the customer was told that the contract contained no promotional terms.
The Commission’s investigation found that the customer had renewed the mobile service contract with a 50% promotional discount for six months. The trader said the discount had been omitted from the bill because of a “technical error”. The account was corrected only after the supervisory authority intervened.
In another case, customers were offered an HBO television package by telephone on promotional terms for four months. No written contract or terms were supplied. After the promotion ended, the company charged for the service without having informed customers that they needed to cancel it.
One customer who complained to the Commission disputed the charges imposed after the promotion. She argued that, without a contract, she did not know the terms of the service or the cancellation procedure. The Commission’s investigation established that her Vivacom Trio: Net + Mobi + TV contract, concluded six months earlier, included a 25% discount for its entire term, but this had not been reflected in her bills.
