Top EU Court backs net neutrality in ruling with impact on "zero-tariff" deals
3 min to read

Top EU Court backs net neutrality in ruling with impact on “zero-tariff” deals

Date
07 October 2020
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has published its first judgment on net neutrality and zero-rating on 15 September 2020. The judgment is available here. The case submitted to the CJEU concerns two mobile telephony subscriptions of Telenor in Hungary.

The first was the MyChat subscription. This subscription included a data limit of 1 Gigabyte that could be used for all Internet applications. As soon as that limit was reached, the entire Internet access would become considerably slower. However, the data traffic that belonged to certain social media and messaging applications did not count towards the data limit. Such subscriptions are a species of so-called “zero-rated” subscriptions. In addition, once the data limit was reached, the speed of all data traffic was slowed down, except for the zero-rated applications. For the MyMusic subscription, most of the same applied, except that the data limit varied for that subscription.

The CJEU ruled that this type of zero-rated subscription is in violation of Regulation 2015/2120/EU of 25 November 2015 laying down measures on open Internet access.

The CJEU held that national regulatory authorities should determine on a case-by-case basis whether the conduct of a given provider of such packages falls within the scope of Article 3(2) or Article 3(3) of that Regulation, or both provisions cumulatively. If the package falls within the scope of both provisions cumulatively, the authorities may perform the assessment with one or other of those provisions. The Court also ruled that if such an authority determines that Article 3(3) was violated, the authority may refrain from determining whether that conduct is also incompatible with Article 3(2) of that Regulation.

Based on their particular characteristics, the CJEU concluded that such packages: 1) are incompatible with Article 3(2) of Regulation 2015/2120, read in conjunction with Article 3(1) of that Regulation, where those packages, agreements, and measures blocking or slowing down traffic limit the exercise of end users’ rights, and 2) are incompatible with Article 3(3) of that regulation where those measures blocking or slowing down traffic are based on commercial considerations.

In essence, in line with decisions taken by regulators in a number of EU Member States, the CJEU has confirmed that subscriptions which: 1) exclude data usage from certain applications from counting towards the data limit and 2) which slow down the speed of data traffic once the data limit was reached (except for the zero-rated applications), are, generally speaking, in violation of the Net Neutrality Regulation. The judgment provides useful guidance on the Net Neutrality Regulation and in particular the relationship between the various criteria in Article 3 of the Regulation and the way in which national regulatory authorities should assess internet access services under that regulation.

A more detailed analysis of the judgment can be found here.

For further background, it may be useful to note that in December 2018, Bird & Bird published a study for the European Commission on the implementation of the Net Neutrality Regulation. Pages 62-63 of the study analyse the position of national telecommunications regulators of several EU Member States.

For further information, contact: Raoul Grifoni Waterman
Share
Written by
Raoul Grifoni Waterman
Raoul Grifoni Waterman
Raoul specialises in commercial contracting with a focus on the Tech & Comms sector. Raoul is an associate in Bird & Bird's Commercial Practice and is based in The Hague. He focuses on a wide array of commercial contracts in technology-heavy industries. Having completed both fundamental and practical computer science classes at university level, Raoul takes a particular interest in the intersection between information technology and law.
Related articles
Smart Contracts – Recognising and Addressing the Risks
4 min to read
29 December 2021
Smart Contracts – Recognising and Addressing the Risks
Smart contracts, where some or all of the contractual obligations are defined in and/or performed automatically by a computer program, are expected to have a significant impact on the way business is...
Technology Projects: Managing the Risks of Innovation and Change Part 3: Contract Reset and Dispute Resolution
Technology Projects: Managing the Risks of Innovation and Change Part 3: Contract Reset and Dispute Resolution
Customers in long-term technology projects can find that while they have been working towards their chosen solution a more advanced, cheaper, or simply more desirable technology has become available....
Digital dispute resolution rules to facilitate rapid and cost-effective resolution of disputes involving novel digital technologies
Digital dispute resolution rules to facilitate rapid and cost-effective resolution of disputes involving novel digital technologies
While some saw the development of products using blockchain technology leading to the demise of disputes, the reality is that disputes in the arena of digital technology are increasing in number. Lawtech’s...
Technology Projects: Managing the Risks of Innovation and Change Part 2: During the Life of the Project
Technology Projects: Managing the Risks of Innovation and Change Part 2: During the Life of the Project
Customers in long-term technology projects can find that while they have been working towards their chosen solution a more advanced, cheaper, or simply more desirable technology has become available....
Cookies
We use analytics cookies to help us understand if our website is working well and to learn what content is most useful to visitors. We also use some cookies which are essential to make our website work. You can accept or reject our analytic cookies (including the collection of associated data) and change your mind at any time. Find out more in our Cookie Notice.