The nasty surprise came in the form of an invoice. A Munich club that had signed a flat-rate mobile phone contract with a large mobile operator was suddenly supposed to transfer the company 2,464.39 euros instead of the agreed 50.17 euros. The following happened: The association had let its board of directors use the mobile phone for a trip to Canada. There, however, the device dialed into the foreign roaming service and caused the horrific bill within four weeks. However, the association only paid part of it. The mobile operator waived another one of 400 euros as part of a goodwill credit.
But that was not the end of the matter. Because a debt collection company, which had the outstanding claim of 1961.11 euros assigned to it, now demanded the amount for its part. The association filed a lawsuit, which is why the case ended up in a civil court at the Munich district court.
During the hearing, the association’s representative took the view that the mobile operator should have pointed out the much higher costs abroad. But because this did not happen, the club had filed claims for damages in return. The debt collection company, however, insisted that the mobile operator had no obligation to provide information. This only applies to consumers, but not to entrepreneurs such as the defendant association.
According to the court, the company should have pointed out the costs
The judge largely agreed with the defendant club, so that it only had to pay 552.59 euros. In his judgement, the judge pointed out that the mobile operator would have been obliged to inform the defendant of “costs that were much higher than the basic tariff”. Roaming has only been free in Europe for about five years.
According to the court, the cell phone operator could easily have pointed out, for example by means of automatic notifications by SMS or e-mail, that the use of the cell phone in Canada would incur costs far in excess of the contractually agreed flat rate. In the case of mobile phone contracts with flat rate tariffs in particular, the court is convinced that the mobile phone operator has “an increased reason” to “inform the contracting party about sharply increased costs” (Az. 113 C 23543/20).