The OGH stated at the outset that it must base its ruling on the provisions contained in the 2003 telecommunications law, which entered into force during the trial. This is because any changes to the law at any stage of the trial must be taken into account. In accordance with § 25 of this new law, communication network and service operators were entitled to amend their STCs and the conditions governing their charges. However, if ONE consequently regarded clause no.3 as permissible, there was a counter-argument: that this clause would clearly entitle ONE to change or restrict the scope of its services. Thus, this clause was not limited merely to changes to the STCs. Rather, because in class action proceedings it is always necessary to interpret the facts of the case on a "worst case scenario for the consumer" basis, the clause could also entitle ONE to alter individual contracts. It was therefore in breach of § 6 para 2 line 3 KSchG.
With regard to clauses 4 and 5, which ONE had removed, the OGH examined the argument put forward by the company in its formal appeal; namely that because the clauses had been removed, there was no danger of repetition. The OGH contested this assertion by pointing to the fact that ONE had initially claimed that the clauses were not illegal when formally answering the claims made against it. Moreover, ONE had neither offered any settlement, nor made any pledge to desist, secured against a penalty, as per § 28 para 2 KSchG. Under this provision, there was no longer any danger that the unacceptably agreed terms would be used or referred to if the supplier, on receiving a warning from a body entitled under § 29 KSchG to file a class action lawsuit, makes a pledge to desist both within a reasonable timeframe and secured against an appropriate penalty (§ 1336 ABGB). This provision aimed to clarify that a body entitled to bring a class action under § 29 KSchG could issue a formal warning without running the risk of finding themselves in a disadvantageous position in subsequent legal proceedings. Gebe der Unternehmer die verlangte Unterlassungserklärung ab, so sei die Wiederholungsgefahr weggefallen; gebe er sie hingegen nicht ab, so indiziere dies im Allgemeinen die Wiederholungsgefahr. Aus § 28 Abs 2 KSchG sei demnach zu folgern, dass die Wiederholungsgefahr regelmäßig zu bejahen sei, wenn der Unternehmer trotz Abmahnung eine Unterlassungserklärung verweigert. Die Wiederholungsgefahr könnte nur verneint werden, wenn es geradezu ausgeschlossen wäre, dass der Unternehmer die beanstandeten gesetz- oder sittenwidrigen Bedingungen oder sinngleiche Klauseln in seine Geschäftsbedingungen aufnimmt. Davon könnte im vorliegenden Fall keine Rede sein. Wäre ONE tatsächlich entschlossen, in Zukunft auf derartige Bedingungen zu verzichten, so hätte das Unternehmen diesem Sinneswandel durch eine strafbewehrte Unterlassungserklärung oder gegebenenfalls durch einen vollstreckbaren Unterlassungsvergleich Ausdruck verleihen können und müssen.