Legal success for the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations (vzbv): Mobile phone providers are not always allowed to charge a fee for issuing replacement SIM cards. The decision was taken by the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt am Main following a VZBV lawsuit against 1&1 Drilisch Online. According to the price list, operators from brands like SimplyTel charge 14.95 euros for a replacement SIM card in their mobile phone tariffs. No exceptions were planned. In the further section, the Company reserves the right to exchange the respective Access Module for a replacement card for technical or operational reasons. The High Regional Court now decided: The uncertainties concerned would put customers at an unfair disadvantage.
Advertisement
The provisions criticized by the VZBV should be understood by the average customer to mean that he will have to pay a fee of Rs 14.85 even if the mobile phone service provider has given him a non-functional SIM without his intervention and hence he has to pay a new SIM. orders,” which has now been published says Decision of 18th July (Reference: 1UKI 2/24). In doing so, Drillisk is not allowing the costs of meeting its own obligations to be passed on to its contractual partners. The latter context of the customer’s request, which was not clearly stated in the clause, remains very unclear. The customer may also have to take the initiative in cases in which its contractual partner already has to take action due to its obligation.
Responding to protests: Reddit introduced changesIn many cases, mobile phone providers are not allowed to charge additional fees.
The judges complain that Drilisk does not make it clear in the general terms and conditions that replacing the card for technical or operational reasons is an obligation that only affects the mobile phone service provider and is therefore “not at the request of the customer.” Overall, the disputed fee is not compatible with the “essential fundamental principles” of the German Civil Code (BGB) and disproportionately harms the contractual partners. It also contradicts the need for transparency. However, the High Regional Court allowed an appeal to the Federal Court, so the decision is not yet legally binding. Because this matter is of fundamental importance and has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, Drilisk argued that providing replacement SIM cards is an additional service beyond one’s own “core service obligations”. This is done only when a customer places the relevant order and is in their interest only. Whether there will be a charge for this depends entirely on the mobile phone contract. However, replacement of the SIM card or e-SIM after device replacement or in the event of a warranty claim on the mobile device affects the canons of obligations from the hardware purchase contract. Therefore no additional cost will be charged for this.
VJBV legal officer Jana Brockfeld was pleased with the court’s clarification that mobile phone customers are entitled to “a functional SIM card at no additional cost”. In many cases, issuing a replacement is not a special service for which a company may charge extra.
(Old)
Secret surveillance: The Federal Constitutional Court again criticizes the BKA law
