Unsolicited caller tune: Court orders MTN to pay subscriber N5m damages

Ini Billie, Uyo

The Court of Appeal has ordered a telecommunication firm, MTN Nigeria to pay N5 million to its subscriber, Mr Achunulo Godwin for unsolicited caller tunes.

The N5m damages was awarded to Godwin for adverts in place of his chosen caller tune, and deductions made from his airtime without consent or valid agreement.

According to court records, the respondent activated a gospel tune titled, “I have a dream”, but was shocked to discover that MTN had replaced it with paid adverts that promoted products and services, deducting N50 monthly from his balance over several months.

In a suit filed at the High Court, the respondent requested a full account of all revenues generated through the unauthorized caller tunes, an apology, and the refund of all deductions from December 2010 to the date of judgment.

Following this request, the High Court ruled in favour of Godwin and awarded over N10 million in damages, but MTN appealed the judgment, arguing that the text messages used to establish the contract were not directly traced to them, saying third parties were responsible for the disputed services.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal sitting in Owerri, Imo State upheld the claim that MTN engaged in exploitative and unauthorized deductions, but reviewed the damages downward to N5 million, saying only proven deductions could be relied upon.

Justice Ntong Ntong, who delivered the lead judgment, condemned the practice of forcing unsolicited services on users, arguing that telecom providers must respect consumer rights and obtain clear consent before activating paid services.

Justice Ntong urged telecom providers to stop using unauthorized deductions and unsolicited services to exploit its customers, adding that the courts must remain guided by the law and evidence.

The appellate court ruled that only N150, representing three months of deductions, was proven by the respondent, as such, any relief beyond that was perverse.

It further nullified the order for apology and struck out a document used in the lower court for lack of proper service evidence, and did not award cost on the matter.