A clear position of the ECJ: zero support for zero tariff options
04/10/2021

A zero tariff option is a commercial practice whereby an internet access provider applies a ‘zero tariff’ (or a tariff that is more advantageous) to all or part of the data traffic associated with an application or category of specific applications, offered by partners of that internet access provider. Those data are therefore not counted towards the data volume purchased as part of the basic package.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has issued a position on zero tariff options in three recent decisions, all dated 2 September 2021. 

The ECJ was given the opportunity to do so after it received requests for preliminary rulings in the three following cases concerning the ‘Vodafone Pass’ provided by Vodafone GmbH and/or the ‘Stream On’ option provided by Telekom Deutschland GmbH:

the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Administrative Court, Cologne, Germany) referred to the ECJ the case C-854/19. It concerns a dispute between Vodafone GmbH and the Bundesnetzagentur (a federal agency for, amongst others, telecommunications) that raised questions with regard to roaming under Regulation 531/2012 (as amended by Regulation 2015/2120);
the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf) referred to the ECJ the case C-5/20. It concerns a dispute between Vodafone GmbH and the Bundesverband (a federation of consumer protection organisations) that raised questions with regard to the compatibility of a clause restricting certain tethering activities for end users with Regulation 2015/2120; and
the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Administrative Court, Cologne) ) referred to the ECJ the case C-34/20. It concerns a dispute between Telekom Deutschland GmbH and the Bundesnetzagentur that raised questions with regard to the compatibility of a limitation on bandwidth after the activation of a zero tariff option (applied to video streaming, irrespective of whether it is streamed by partner operators or other content providers) with Regulation 2015/2120. 

In all three cases, the ECJ observed that the questions were based on the assumption that the zero tariff option itself is compatible with EU (telecommunications) law.

In its decisions, the ECJ reminds the parties of Article 3 of Regulation 2015/2120, which enshrines the principles of an open internet and net neutrality, and summarises its key principles:

paragraph 1 sets out the right of end users not only to access information and content, use applications and services, and distribute information and content, but also to provide applications and services;
paragraph 2 establishes that agreements concluded between providers of internet access services and end users and commercial practices conducted by those providers must not limit the exercise of end users’ rights as laid down in paragraph 1; and
paragraph 3 provides (i) that internet access providers are to treat all traffic equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, and irrespective, inter alia, of the applications or services used; (ii) that the foregoing does not prevent internet access providers from implementing reasonable traffic management measures (in order to be deemed reasonable, such measures, first, must be transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate, second, must not be based on commercial considerations but on objectively different technical requirements of certain categories of traffic and, third, must not monitor content or be maintained for longer than necessary); and (iii) that internet access providers must not engage in traffic management measures going beyond those that are deemed reasonable and in particular must not block, slow down, alter, restrict, interfere with, degrade or discriminate between applications or services, or specific categories thereof, save certain particular exceptions (provided for in Regulation 2015/2120). 

The ECJ stresses the importance of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic in the provision of internet access services and recalls that Article 3 (3) of Regulation 2015/2120 precludes any measure which runs counter to the obligation of equal treatment of traffic where such a measure is based on commercial considerations.

It subsequently concludes that a zero tariff option, such as the ‘Vodafone Pass’ and/or the ‘Stream On’ option, draws a distinction within internet traffic, on the basis of commercial considerations, by not counting traffic to partner applications towards the basic package. Such a commercial practice does not satisfy the general obligation of equal treatment of traffic, without discrimination or interference, and is therefore incompatible with Article 3 (3) of Regulation 2015/2120. 

Since the zero tariff option is contrary to the obligations arising from Regulation 2015/2120 and incompatible with Article 3 (3) altogether, it follows that limitations on bandwidth, tethering or use when roaming, on account of the activation of such an option, are also incompatible with EU law.

It is now up to the referring courts to apply the clear input from the ECJ to the disputes before them. These decisions will undoubtedly have an impact on other disputes (in other Member States and with other authorities) as well.

Related : Lydian ( Mr. Bastiaan Bruyndonckx ,  Mr. Ruben Van Breugel )

[+ http://www.lydian.be]

Mr. Bastiaan Bruyndonckx Mr. Bastiaan Bruyndonckx
Partner
[email protected]
Mr. Ruben Van Breugel Mr. Ruben Van Breugel
Associate
[email protected]

Click here to see the ad(s)
All articles European Law

Lastest articles European Law

Priorities of the Belgian Competition Authority for 2022
20/05/2022

On 12 May 2022, the Belgian Competition Authority (the “Authority”) issued its annual communication setting ou...

Priorities of the Belgian Competition Authority for 2022 Read more

REPowerEU and the Energy Market Design – What are the plans of the EU Commission?
20/05/2022

On 18 May 2022, the EU Commission presented a plan to reduce dependence on Russian fossil fuels and fast forward the green...

REPowerEU and the Energy Market Design – What are the plans of the EU Commission? Read more

EU Commission Adopts New Rules for Distribution Agreements: What’s to Come for Distribution Rel...
18/05/2022

On May 10, 2022, the European Commission adopted the new Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) and accompanying Verti...

EU Commission Adopts New Rules for Distribution Agreements: What’s to Come for Distribution Relationships in the Digital Age? Read more

The EU nears new rules to curb unfair competition from foreign subsidies
16/05/2022

The EU is on course to secure new powers that will enable the Commission to review market-distorting subsidies from outsid...

The EU nears new rules to curb unfair competition from foreign subsidies Read more

Lastest articles by Mr. Bastiaan Bruyndonckx

EDPB publishes guidelines on DSARs
18/02/2022

On 18 January 2022, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published its draft Guidelines on the right of access&n...

Read more

Explicit consent for processing health-related data by (re)insurers no longer needed in Belgium?
21/01/2022

Yesterday, several press articles mentioned that the FPS Economy had prepared a preliminary draft law on the processing of...

Read more

Klokkenluidersregelingen: stand van zaken
17/12/2021

D'ici demain, 17 décembre 2021, la Directive EU sur les lanceurs d'alerte n° 2019/1937 du 23 octobre 20...

Read more

The BDPA’s recommendation on processing of biometric data
07/12/2021

On 6 December 2021, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the BDPA) published a recommendation on the processing of ...

Read more

Lastest articles by Mr. Ruben Van Breugel

The E-Privacy Regulation: light at the end of the tunnel?
18/02/2021

On 10 February 2021, after years of failed attempts, the Council of the European Union finally agreed on a negotiating&nbs...

Read more

To what extent can artists use trademarks in their works?
15/11/2019

The Benelux Court of Justice (“BCJ”), an international court composed of magistrates from the highest courts o...

Read more

LexGO Network