Though the Consumer Protection Council (CPC), a federal government agency with the constitutional responsibility to protect the welfare and interest of consumers in Nigeria has dragged MultiChoice, operators of DStv to court, halting planned tariff hike, the question remains when it will conclude its endless investigation on the Pay TV outfit since February 2016. Some analysts who spoke to our correspondents argued that the endless investigation may have been a ploy to keep the pay TV group on their toes.
However, while stressing that DStv‘s business practices and specific conducts were in violation of the law with respect to the rights of consumers in Nigeria, the Council noted that in the course of its investigation and consultative engagement with MultiChoice Nigeria, DStv “preemptively and surreptitiously introduced a subscription regime which imposes increased charges and costs on Nigerian Consumers of digital satellite television service with effect from 1st August 2018.”
In a statement issued to notify Nigerians on securing an Ex-Parte injunction restraining Multichoice “DSTV” from continuing the new pricing regime pending further investigation by the CPC, the agency averred that MultiChoice action is capable of rendering ineffective and nugatory the on-going regulatory investigation which seeks to prevent continuing exploitation of Nigerian consumers through obnoxious and exploitative billing systems and pricing regimes.
Industry followers are however divided on the actual time CPC will conclude its investigations so that it will either begin a full scale class action on the firm if it finds actionable deeds or leave DStv off the hook.
On the Implications of the order on DStv, CPC argued that aside from its restriction from “implementing any of its increased subscription rate or price review”, the court also restrained DStv from carrying on or continuing any conduct or activity which interferes with or has effect of circumventing the outcome of ongoing investigations by the CPC into the company’s compliance or non-compliance with the February 16, 2016 order (over alleged unfairness, arbitrariness and excessiveness of pricing and billing systems) pending the determination of the motion on notice. The case was adjourned by the court to Tuesday, August 28, for hearing.
