Consumer wins against Cell C: R500,000 fine over roaming charges

CELL C was slapped with a R500,000 fine after a consumer received a R11,265 bill for just a few hours of international roaming in France.

The National Consumer Tribunal sitting in Centurion found the mobile operator contravened various sections of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

Apart from the fine, Cell C must also refund its client, Julie Williams, the R7,480 she was overcharged. Cell C was further interdicted from in future engaging in similar prohibited conduct.

The scathing judgment by the tribunal followed a complaint by Williams regarding her cellphone bill.

She said Cell C agreed on a monthly bill limit of R3,785 for international roaming before her departure, yet when she returned, she was slapped with a bill of more than R11,000.

In May 2022, Williams contacted the respondent’s call centre to increase the monthly limit on her cellular phone contract. She also activated an international roaming service before travelling to France.

She said that the agent informed her that she needed to read the terms and conditions before activating the international roaming service.

Her limit was then raised to R3,785, as agreed to by the parties. The international roaming service was also activated before the telephone call ended.

She travelled to France the following day while using her cellular phone and the respondent’s international roaming service.

The next day, Cell C notified Williams via a text message that her set limit had been exceeded and that she would no longer have access to international roaming, calling, or other premium-rated services.

Williams said she then decided to use a local French SIM card in her phone from that day and for the remainder of her trip.

Cell C, meanwhile, invoiced Williams R11,265.32, the bulk of which was due to international roaming charges.

She emailed the customer service department and vehemently objected to the amount on the invoice. She pointed out that it exceeded the limit she had set and she refused to pay the amount she was billed for.

Cell C, meanwhile, responded that she was told of the high costs of international roaming before activating the service, and its terms and conditions were read to her during the telephone call.

The terms and conditions explain that there may be delays in imposing limits for its international roaming service and that the mobile operator cannot guarantee the accuracy of the set limits.

As a result, it denied that it breached any provision of the CPA and confirmed that Williams was liable for the costs incurred above her set limit.

The tribunal found that the agent confirmed that Williams' international roaming had been activated and that the new limit was in place.

Thus, she had peace of mind and did not concern herself with the terms and conditions as she felt it would not apply to her.

The tribunal added that Cell C disregarded consumer rights and the legislation enacted to protect consumers. It attempted to hide behind the costs imposed by foreign network operators and neglected to uphold the spirit and purpose of the CPA.

“It must be held accountable and prevented from repeating its conduct in future,” the tribunal said.