Clipping of news on Brazilian Culture, Law and Citizenship
03/07/2012
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.
Practice is prevented by loyalty within permitted by the FCC
In a unanimous decision, the Federal Court in Brasilia banned mobile operators to block devices in the same period of retention of up to 12 months stipulated in the contract and permitted by the FCC. Failure to comply may render the decision a daily fine of r$ 50,000 Vivo and Claro.
The resources were judged formulated by federal prosecutors and the Hi against sentence of the first degree that rejected the requests for public civil action brought by the MPF against mobile phone companies, aiming to curb practices of loyalty and lock, even temporarily, from cell phones, harmful to the economic and consumers.
In the argument of resources, and MPF Hi maintained that "nothing justifies the blockade of cell phones, because this practice is binding on the consumer to get connected to a single operator." They also emphasized that the aforesaid conduct hurts the consumer's right to exercise freedom of choice.
In his defense, the operators Vivo and Claro, supported the thesis that the consumer always has the right to seek a provider that suited him paying the full value of the mobile device. However, they stress, "to grant certain benefits, the operator bears the cost of the device and ends up carrying certain charges to the market." This practice, known as loyalty, is, according to mobile operators, allowed by the FCC.
The rapporteur, Federal Judge Souza Prudente, disagreed with the arguments presented by the mobile operators. According to the magistrate, the argument that resolution of the FCC allows the practice of tying in the form of cross subsidy is wrong.
"The technical blocking of handsets set a violence against the consumer," said the rapporteur to reform the judgment of first instance to determine that the mobile operators to refrain from the practice of technical blocking of handsets.
By monitoring the vote of the rapporteur, the federal judge federal Selene Almeida said there is no way to accept such clauses. "By requiring the consumer to be loyal to a particular plan, is characterized matched sale, an affront, because the consumer's rights" because the companies are actually doing through discounts in exchange for appliances is to repay savings with the service, "since the amount of monthly payments end up paying, with leftovers, the benefits"
Source: Telesíntese
Our news are taken in full of our partner sites. For this reason, we can not change the content of these up in case of typing errors.
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.