In a landmark decision, the Court of Appeal in Abuja has slapped MTN Nigeria with a N15 million fine for violating a customer’s right to privacy.
The court ruled that MTN’s persistent sending of unsolicited messages and caller tunes, as well as their practice of automatically renewing services without consent, constitutes a breach of subscribers’ right to privacy as outlined in Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution and Regulation 28 of the Consumer Code of Practice Regulations.
The court’s decision is a significant win for consumers who have long complained about MTN’s intrusive practices.
The fine is expected to serve as a deterrent to other telecom companies that engage in similar practices.
It’s worth noting that this is not the first time MTN has faced penalties for its practices. In the past, the company has faced fines and criticism for its handling of customer data and services.
The judgment was delivered in response to an appeal filed by Mr. Ezugwu Anene, a public interest lawyer and MTN Nigeria customer, who sought redress for the company’s invasive practices in a case marked CA/ABJ/CV/137/2022.
Anene had taken MTN to court, alleging he received over 244 unsolicited text messages for Weekly Guidance and Counseling, a service he never subscribed to.
He also claimed that MTN unlawfully deducted N20 from his airtime balance each time he received these messages between 2016 and 2018 on his mobile line, 08030735301.
The Appellant alleged that MTN continued to deduct his airtime for Caller Tune Services that was imposed on him.
Anene told the court that despite his protests at MTN’s Abuja office and activating the “Do Not Disturb” service using the code 2442, the unauthorized deductions from his account continued unabated.
Persecondnews gathered that the appeal originated from a September 22, 2021 judgment delivered by Justice U.P. Kekemeke of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory(FCT).
Justice Kekemeke awarded N300,000 in general damages, but noted that the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims about the 88 unwanted calls.
Dissatisfied with the award, the claimant appealed to the Appeal Court, arguing that the amount was inadequate.
Leave a comment