Pontevedra Commercial Court No. 1 ruled that the telecommunications company Orange engaged in abusive practices by including consumers in inheritance solvency files for debts claimed after their contracts ended when customers unsubscribed or moved to another operator. When these consumers disputed payments without having previously defaulted or without being listed in the companys financial liability files for default risk, the resulting liabilities escalated into monetary claims.
The judge partly upheld the Public Prosecutors Office claim. Orange was ordered to stop the abusive practices immediately and to refrain from repeating them. The court also required Orange to publish the ruling in the widest circulating newspaper, in accordance with the General Media Survey. A broad set of consumers across Spain is affected. If the President of Pontevedra Commercial Court No. 1 repeats the prohibited actions, a substantial fine of 60,000 euros will be imposed for each repetition.
The non final sentence notes that the case can be challenged before the State Court. The court pointed out that Orange included former clients in its capital solvency records for refusing to pay an invoiced amount, regardless of the validity of the payment objection. It is highlighted that Orange continues to place data in asset payment files for nonpayment by former customers who left services, even when those services were provided poorly. Debts claimed after the contractual relationship ends are pursued despite those clients having previously paid other debts. In many instances, these are small sums.
We are faced with abusive practices consisting of illegitimate pressure to repay disputed debts, said the judge from Pontevedra.
The judge stated that when a debt is not legally claimed and the affected person has never defaulted or was not previously included in follow-up files by other creditors, there is no real reason to doubt insolvency or solvency in inheritance, nor can it be considered as someone at risk of failing to meet monetary obligations. The court concluded that those in this position should be included in such files. The real aim appears to be to discredit Orange via vendettas to oppose payment of a debt deemed legitimate, or to apply pressure to ensure the debt is paid, even if the origin of the dispute is unclear.
Thus, the ruling notes that there are abusive practices consisting of illegitimate pressure to pay disputed debts that violate the most fundamental consumer rights, including the right to dignity. The judge emphasized that including clients personal data in debt settlement files was aimed at informing others about solvency and guilt linked to the non payment or alleged debts, to push affected individuals to settle. The court stressed that this cannot be considered a legitimate objective, a position supported by Supreme Court case law and consistent with national consumer protection standards. The decision underlines the need to safeguard individuals from improper use of their information in debt collection processes and to uphold fair treatment for consumers who challenge charges they believe are incorrect. This ruling sets a clear precedent against such practices and signals the courts commitment to protecting consumer dignity and financial privacy in debt disputes. This is marked as a significant development in Spain regarding how debt data may be handled after contract termination and highlights the ongoing effort to curb coercive collection tactics in the telecom sector.