Vodafone, EE, O2, Three hit with £3B overcharging lawsuit
(2025/11/18)
- Reference: 1763460912
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/11/18/uk_mobile_overcharging_suit/
- Source link:
Britain's biggest mobile phone companies face legal action over claims they overcharged customers through a "loyalty penalty" after a tribunal permitted the cases to proceed.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) [1]ruled on Friday that collective action cases filed against Vodafone, BT/EE, O2, and Three can move forward, though it limited how far back damage claims can reach.
The cases involve contracts bundling handsets with services. The contention is that customers who continued using the service after the minimum term ended were charged the same monthly fee, and not a SIM-only fee for continued use of the network.
[2]
Plaintiff Justin Gutmann – understood to be a former executive at Citizens Advice – said he was seeking damages of more than £3 billion ($4 billion) as the "class representative" on behalf of millions of subscribers he claims were overcharged when [3]the cases were filed in 2023.
[4]
[5]
He characterizes these excess payments as a "loyalty penalty" imposed on customers who didn't immediately switch providers.
Citizens Advice has [6]published a notice warning that phone providers may be overcharging loyal customers.
[7]O2 cranks prices mid-contract, essentially telling customers to like it or lump it
[8]Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
[9]VodafoneThree to offshore UK network jobs to India
[10]Tablet market stalls because there's not much new worth buying
"At the end of a two-year contract, you're free to move plans, or to switch providers. Or, if you're happy with your handset and plan, you can just stay and keep everything the same. But there's a catch. You're no longer paying for the handset – but your price stays the same," Citizens Advice stated.
The CAT ruling granted an application made by all four mobile companies to strike out any claims relating to the period before October 1, 2015, due to limitation rules, but refused an application made by Vodafone, BT/EE, and Three to also strike out claims for the period before March 8, 2017.
[11]
The tribunal approved Gutmann as class representative despite operators' arguments questioning his ability to fund the proceedings or fairly represent claimants.
A spokesperson for O2 told The Register : "At this early point in the proceedings, we welcome the Competition Appeal Tribunal's ruling that the majority of the claim has no basis to be brought, significantly reducing its scope. We maintain that there is no merit to Mr Gutmann's case for the remaining period and will continue to robustly defend our position as it proceeds."
Over at EE, a company representative told us: "The tribunal's ruling was an early stage procedural matter to determine if and how the claim should proceed, as well as to determine the claim period. We do not accept the substantive allegations of the claim. Our priority is, and always will be, to provide a great experience for our customers."
[12]
The Reg asked Vodafone and Three to comment. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.catribunal.org.uk/judgments/16247723-16257723-16267723-16277723-judgment-certification-and-limitation-14-nov-2025
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aRxR0j1V_92EvQB8faBEGQAAAY4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67649539
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aRxR0j1V_92EvQB8faBEGQAAAY4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aRxR0j1V_92EvQB8faBEGQAAAY4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://cawatford.org.uk/internal/3-largest-mobile-phone-providers-overcharging-loyal-customers/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/31/ofcom_o2_price_hike/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/09/europe_to_decide_if_6/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/31/vodafonethree_to_offshore_uk_network/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/12/idc_tablet_market_data/
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aRxR0j1V_92EvQB8faBEGQAAAY4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aRxR0j1V_92EvQB8faBEGQAAAY4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) [1]ruled on Friday that collective action cases filed against Vodafone, BT/EE, O2, and Three can move forward, though it limited how far back damage claims can reach.
The cases involve contracts bundling handsets with services. The contention is that customers who continued using the service after the minimum term ended were charged the same monthly fee, and not a SIM-only fee for continued use of the network.
[2]
Plaintiff Justin Gutmann – understood to be a former executive at Citizens Advice – said he was seeking damages of more than £3 billion ($4 billion) as the "class representative" on behalf of millions of subscribers he claims were overcharged when [3]the cases were filed in 2023.
[4]
[5]
He characterizes these excess payments as a "loyalty penalty" imposed on customers who didn't immediately switch providers.
Citizens Advice has [6]published a notice warning that phone providers may be overcharging loyal customers.
[7]O2 cranks prices mid-contract, essentially telling customers to like it or lump it
[8]Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
[9]VodafoneThree to offshore UK network jobs to India
[10]Tablet market stalls because there's not much new worth buying
"At the end of a two-year contract, you're free to move plans, or to switch providers. Or, if you're happy with your handset and plan, you can just stay and keep everything the same. But there's a catch. You're no longer paying for the handset – but your price stays the same," Citizens Advice stated.
The CAT ruling granted an application made by all four mobile companies to strike out any claims relating to the period before October 1, 2015, due to limitation rules, but refused an application made by Vodafone, BT/EE, and Three to also strike out claims for the period before March 8, 2017.
[11]
The tribunal approved Gutmann as class representative despite operators' arguments questioning his ability to fund the proceedings or fairly represent claimants.
A spokesperson for O2 told The Register : "At this early point in the proceedings, we welcome the Competition Appeal Tribunal's ruling that the majority of the claim has no basis to be brought, significantly reducing its scope. We maintain that there is no merit to Mr Gutmann's case for the remaining period and will continue to robustly defend our position as it proceeds."
Over at EE, a company representative told us: "The tribunal's ruling was an early stage procedural matter to determine if and how the claim should proceed, as well as to determine the claim period. We do not accept the substantive allegations of the claim. Our priority is, and always will be, to provide a great experience for our customers."
[12]
The Reg asked Vodafone and Three to comment. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.catribunal.org.uk/judgments/16247723-16257723-16267723-16277723-judgment-certification-and-limitation-14-nov-2025
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aRxR0j1V_92EvQB8faBEGQAAAY4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67649539
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aRxR0j1V_92EvQB8faBEGQAAAY4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aRxR0j1V_92EvQB8faBEGQAAAY4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://cawatford.org.uk/internal/3-largest-mobile-phone-providers-overcharging-loyal-customers/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/31/ofcom_o2_price_hike/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/09/europe_to_decide_if_6/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/31/vodafonethree_to_offshore_uk_network/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/12/idc_tablet_market_data/
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aRxR0j1V_92EvQB8faBEGQAAAY4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aRxR0j1V_92EvQB8faBEGQAAAY4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Think it through
af108
"The contention is that customers who continued using the service after the minimum term ended were charged the same monthly fee, and not a SIM-only fee for continued use of the network."
As much as I like to be on the side of a consumer, if you're this thick then you deserve to be penalised.
When you see some contracts now which are in the £60+ per month region you must surely realise that it doesn't cost that for just the airtime/data!
You're paying for the handset plus an amount of interest on top. Then a relatively small amount covers the airtime/data plan even though it's bundled into 1 monthly figure. After the handset (and interest) are paid off, you own it, in the same way as if you'd bought it outright. So no need to carry on paying so much per month.
The cheapest way to buy any phone is to simply buy it outright and then get a cheap SIM deal separately. Even the likes of Apple do interest-free finance on iPhones so there really is no need to pay more than the cost of the actual handset.
Goodness me.
We do not accept the substantive allegations of the claim
Which is the customer had paid off the handset, but you still continued to charge for it.
Personally, I have always considered that to be immoral (but "this is business"), if not fraud.