The decision, from the First Instance Court, is not yet final, as the operators can appeal to the Superior Court of Justice and, subsequently, the Supreme Court.

As Deco's strategic and institutional relations advisor, Paulo Fonseca, explained to Lusa, the court deemed the operators' communications regarding the price increases during that period null and void, as they failed to properly inform customers or give them the right to terminate contracts without penalty.

"The decision simply does what we have always advocated: it forces operators to refund the difference charged unduly for about eight to ten months," he emphasised.

Deco's action against MEO's owner (Altice), NOS, and NOWO (currently owned by Digi), came after numerous complaints from consumers who were unaware of the exact amounts they would be charged and were unaware that they could terminate their contracts free of charge. Vodafone was not included because, according to Deco, "there is no record of increases to private consumers" during this period.

At issue is the 2016 change in the electronic communications law, which now requires operators to inform consumers whenever they unilaterally change contracts, including the price, and to indicate the possibility of termination without penalty.

Price hikes

According to the association, between August and September 2016, customers began receiving notifications of increases well above inflation—almost 1,000% higher than the then-recorded amount, which was particularly low. Furthermore, these communications did not include clear details about the exact amounts to be charged or the possibility of cancelling without penalty. Shortly thereafter, in the following months, prices were effectively increased without consumers being properly informed or informed of their rights, the official reported.

In light of the situation, Deco met with the operators, who maintained that the communication was correct. After a complaint was filed with Anatel, the regulatory agency concluded that the communication was deficient and ordered it to be repeated, but did not require refunds, which led to the lawsuit filed by Deco in 2018.

How much will refunds be?

According to the association's calculations, approximately 1.6 million consumers may be covered by the decision, primarily those subject to loyalty periods.

The amount to be refunded was calculated by multiplying "the unduly charged monthly increase" by the number of months it was in effect, considering the date of the change until the court ruling. In other words, the corresponding amounts were added together, resulting in a total of close to 40 million euros – a figure that the association admits could be higher as the calculations are adjusted.

On average, each consumer could recover between €14 and €30, plus interest accumulated since 2018, which will increase the amount if the decision becomes final.

Paulo Fonseca expressed confidence in a favourable outcome for consumers and emphasized that even those who did not save receipts could be reimbursed, as the data must be retrieved from the carriers' systems.

When asked by Lusa on Monday, September 22, 2025, about a possible dialogue following the decision, he clarified that Deco has not yet spoken directly with the carriers, and the process is being handled solely by lawyers in court.

The executive also emphasized that the decision carries symbolic weight: "This is a good opportunity to make the market more trustworthy for consumers, a way to [make customers] less afraid to even switch providers," he concluded.

MEO and NOS will appeal

MEO and NOS disagree and will appeal the court decision, which could result in the return of 40 million euros to customers for price increases between 2016 and 2017, official sources from the operators told Lusa.

Lusa also attempted to obtain a response from NOWO, which is also a target in the lawsuit filed in 2018 by the consumer protection association Deco, and is awaiting a response from the operator.

In its written response to Lusa, MEO stated that it "disagrees with the content and grounds of the ruling in question, and will therefore file the appropriate appeal."

"This is, therefore, an ongoing legal proceeding," it emphasized.

In turn, NOS said that it "does not agree with the decision and, naturally, will appeal."