1) The Italian Competition Authority investigated several conducts with possible relation to an unfair commercial practice. According to the Authority, the defendant omitted to provide information that an average consumer would need in order to prevent unaware exceeding of the data traffic threshold of his subscription (and related charges).
In this context, consumers did not have sufficient reliable information regarding the amount of data traffic, and their level of spending. The practice was more dangerous taking into account that several claims involved browsing through international roaming networks, where the charged tariffs were higher and the monitoring procedures more difficult.
In more detail, the defendant admitted that the amount of traffic indicated by the given software differed from the information used for the final invoice. Therefore, the Authoruty concluded, this was not a reliable benchmark.
Regarding the dedicated web page, the Authority pointed out that it was a tool that an average consumer could consider ultimate, and that the data indicated were not updated real time.
Regarding the counter in consumers' computer, the Authority found that it was not useful, since it requires a familiarity with the data units system and an ability to calculate that cannot be considered typical for an average consumer.
Regarding the SMS alerts, the defendant was not able to establish it sent the above mentioned SMS alerts to consumers, because the data were deleted from the defendants systems after six months (pursuant to the privacy discipline).
Finally, the authority emphasised that the defendant had not implemented a single one of the measures the Authority retained useful to limit the "shock billing" (e.g. SMS alerts, cost thresholds).