KaaTruths Podcast Ltd and its founder, Kel Armstrong Amobi, popularly known as KAA, have dragged four major service providers and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) before the Federal High Court in Abuja over what they describe as unfair consumer practices, demanding N50 billion in general and special damages.
The defendants are MTN Nigeria Communications Plc, Globacom Limited, Airtel Networks Limited, MultiChoice Nigeria Limited and the FCCPC.
Announcing the suit in a Facebook post on Friday, KAA said the case seeks to challenge practices under which consumers lose unused data or subscription value when a validity period expires, even where they have been unable to fully use the service.
“This case is not merely about me. It is about millions of Nigerian consumers who pay for services and are expected to bear virtually all the consequences when those services are unused, unavailable, disrupted or expire,” he said.
At the centre of the suit is the question of whether telecommunications companies should be permitted to automatically terminate unused data when the validity period ends.
KAA questioned what he described as an apparent contradiction in the way data consumption and expiry are treated.
He argued that while consumers are required to purchase new bundles immediately after exhausting their data, companies are allowed to retain the value of unused data when its validity period expires.
“How can both principles apply against the consumer?” he asked.
KAA said the suit also challenges the expiry of data in circumstances where consumers are allegedly unable to use the service because of network disruptions or other service-related problems.
He cited an incident involving a N30,000 MTN data subscription billed to last 30 days. According to him, the router supplied to access the service developed a fault, and despite requests for cancellation, refund or rollover of the unused subscription, the request was refused before the subscription eventually expired.
He also cited another incident in which 75GB of data billed for one month was allegedly exhausted in less than seven days despite intermittent network disruptions.
KAA said the plaintiffs had questioned the consumption but claimed that no satisfactory breakdown was provided to explain how the 75GB was used.
“We are taking the questions to court,” he said, signalling a shift from the usual social media complaints over telecom and subscription services to formal legal action.
The suit also targets MultiChoice’s subscription model, with KAA asking the court to examine circumstances in which paid television packages continue to run during periods when consumers are unable to use the service or when the service is disrupted.
Among the reliefs being sought, KAA said the plaintiffs want the court to determine whether contractual terms allowing unused data bundles to expire merely because a stipulated period has elapsed are unfair, unreasonable and contrary to consumer rights.
They are also asking the court to examine whether consumers should lose subscriptions where service providers allegedly failed to make the services usable throughout the period for which consumers had paid.
The plaintiffs are further challenging what KAA described as the absence of meaningful cancellation options in subscription arrangements and are seeking orders restraining the companies from continuing practices the court may find unfair or unlawful.
KAA stressed that the action was not intended as an attack on legitimate business operations.
“This is not a fight against business. It is a fight for fairness in business,” he said, adding that companies have a right to make profits, but consumers also have rights.
He said the case was ultimately intended to force questions about consumer protection to be determined through the courts rather than through repeated complaints on social media.
“For too long, our response to questionable practices has been to complain on X, Facebook, WhatsApp and in beer parlours. We complain today. We pay again tomorrow. Nothing changes,” KAA said.
He maintained that even relatively small charges or forfeitures could translate into significant sums when multiplied across millions of consumers.
The case, he said, therefore extends beyond KaaTruths Podcast and its founder to a broader question of who should retain the value of services consumers have already paid for.
“When you pay for data or a subscription, who should own the value you have paid for — you, or the company that sold it to you?” he asked.
KAA said he was aware that the plaintiffs could either win or lose the case but maintained that taking the matter to court was necessary to subject the disputed practices to legal scrutiny.
“We may win. We may lose. But at the very least, these questions will finally be asked where answers have consequences,” he said.
He also thanked the legal team handling the case, particularly lead counsel Ogbaga Ogba Immanuel, saying the lawyers had worked hard to put the case together.
KAA said his decision to pursue the case represented a commitment to move beyond public criticism and put his resources behind the consumer-rights questions he had raised.
Source: www.kumasimail.com
