Summary

Facts

In 2002 Wi-Net (a local carrier) signed a contract with Virtual Service (a reseller of telecommunication services). Since Virtual Service did not fulfil its economic obligations on time, owing US$ 72 722 to Wi-Net for the resale of local access, Wi-Net proposed purchasing Virtual Service’s customer portfolio. Wi-Net did not receive a response and was sued for coercion. In this context, Wi-Net sent a letter to Virtual Service customers stating that due to business reasons, the relationship between both companies would suffer significant changes that could affect the service customers receive, and advising customers to subscribe directly to the services offered by Wi-Net. Because Virtual Service refused to pay for the wholesale services offered by Wi-Net, this company interrupted the service to Virtual Service customers.

Both operators filed complaints for unfair competition against each other for breach of contract and anticompetitive practices.

Decision

The ordinary collegiate body (CCO) of OSIPTEL partly upheld the Virtual Service complaint and disregarded the complaint of Wi-Net. Specifically, the CCO reached the following conclusions:
- Complaint against Wi-Net: Not upheld for defamation and upheld for having used the customer database of Virtual Service for purposes other than those stated in the resale contract between Virtual Service and Wi-Net.
- Complaint against Virtual Service: Not upheld.
In 2006 the Court of Dispute Resolution confirmed this decision.

Reasoning

- Complaint presented by Virtual Service against Wi-Net
The letter sent by Wi-Net to Virtual Service clients did not state that Virtual Service was experiencing financial problems. For this reason, the CCO did not examine whether the letter sent by Wi-Net affected the reputation of Virtual Service and no defamation was proved.
The letter did not result in customers defaulting on their contractual obligations hence the CCO did not find elements to conclude that the Wi-Net letter caused customers to breach its subscription contract. Nonetheless, the letter led customers to question the suitability of the service and resulted in their breaching their contracts with Virtual Service. Therefore, the complaint for unfair competition could be valid.
The Wi-Net decision to cancel the resale contract with Virtual Service was the result of the debt owed by Virtual Service to Wi-Net. Therefore, this practice did not qualify as unfair competition.
- Complaint presented by Wi-Net against Virtual Service
Wi-Net did not prove any unfair practices by Virtual Service.