With the increasing integration of the internet and mobile communications into everyday life, whether at home, at work, or while travelling, consumer disputes related to telecommunications services have become more frequent. Over the past 2 years, the Consumer Council has received more than 3,000 complaints annually concerning these services. Reported cases included a salesperson suspected to have oversold an elderly customer into signing a long-term contract with multiple similar add-on services that did not match actual needs; a trader citing its service terms to postpone a refund for 365 working days after its pocket Wi-Fi failed to function overseas; and home broadband contracts containing auto-renewal clauses, resulting in consumers missing the opportunity to switch to another preferred plan, or being forced to pay a penalty for early contract termination.
The Council reminds telecommunications operators that overselling and unconscionable contract terms not only damage their reputation, but also erode consumer confidence. The industry is urged to strengthen staff training, recommend plans appropriate for consumers’ actual needs, improve service quality and technical support, as well as establish fair refund arrangements to safeguard consumer rights. According to the “Industry Code of Practice for Telecommunications Service Contracts” issued by the Communications Association of Hong Kong, automatic renewal of a contract would only be effective if customers have specifically indicated in writing on the original contract, or specifically confirmed if the contract is entered into otherwise than in writing, their acceptance of the automatic renewal arrangement. Consumers are also advised to assess their own needs, compare service providers, and carefully review contract terms and charges to minimise disputes.
Case 1: Elderly Customer Upsold on a 67-Month Mobile Service Plan Costing Around $600 per Month with Multiple Similar Add-Ons
The complainant’s father, who is in his 80s and suffers from cataracts, had always maintained a mobile service plan with a monthly fee of less than $100. In August 2024, after speaking with a staff member at a physical branch, he was signed up for a lengthy 67-month contract with a monthly bill of approximately $600, which included a basic fee of $478, a tunnel fee of $18, and several add-on services such as a secondary SIM card, 2 data roaming pass packages, and 2 voice and data roaming packages. The contract also included 4 cloud storage services, which would incur an additional $60 per month after a 3-month free trial unless cancelled. The complainant suspected that the staff member had knowingly upsold his father on unnecessary and expensive services, notably several that were similar in purpose despite knowing that his father neither needed a secondary SIM card nor roaming services as he didn’t travel. He therefore requested either a switch to a more suitable monthly mobile plan or the unconditional termination of his father’s contract.
Company A responded that the staff member had explained all the terms to the complainant’s father. Nevertheless, it offered to cancel the secondary SIM card as a gesture of goodwill, but the complainant declined this offer. The Council advised the complainant to report to the Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA) regarding telecommunications sales practices, and further conciliated with Company A concerning the contract and the financial loss suffered by the complainant’s father. As a result, Company A agreed to cancel the secondary SIM card as well as all add-on services, and invited the complainant to contact them directly if he accepted this resolution. After relaying this proposal, the Council received no further requests for assistance from the complainant.
Case 2: Pocket Wi-Fi Failed Overseas but Refund Took at Least 365 Working Days to Process
The complainant rented a pocket Wi-Fi from Company B for a 5-day trip abroad, paying $120 in rental fees and a $1,000 deposit upfront. Upon arrival in Japan, the device failed to connect to the local network. The complainant connected with the airport Wi-Fi and contacted Company B via an instant messaging app, followed its instructions to reboot the device, and yet the issue persisted. Consequently, she had to purchase roaming data from her Hong Kong mobile services provider to stay connected during the trip. Company B assured her that a full refund would be provided. After returning the device in Hong Kong, she did not receive the refund after waiting for a week. When she inquired about the status, she was advised to raise a dispute concerning this transaction with her credit card issuing bank to expedite the refund process. Displeased with this, the complainant lodged a formal complaint with Company B.
In its response, Company B cited its service terms to state that deposit refunds would require 365 working days to process from the return date of the device. It again suggested that the complainant initiate a credit card chargeback if dissatisfied. The complainant attempted this with her bank but was unsuccessful, prompting her to seek assistance from the Council.
Despite repeated attempts, the Council was unable to reach Company B for conciliation. Due to the company’s lack of response, the Council advised the complainant to seek legal advice and consider redress through other legal means, such as filing a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal.
Case 3: Home Broadband Contract Contained Auto-renewal Clause
The complainant had been a subscriber of Company C’s home broadband service for nearly 7 years. In the past, he would receive a phone call from the company inviting him to renew his contract for another 2 years before each term ended. However, he did not receive a call ahead of his contract’s expiry in 2025. Upon enquiry, he learnt that his contract had been automatically renewed for 2 years, which caused him much dissatisfaction. He therefore turned to the Council for assistance to terminate his contract unconditionally.
Company C stated in its response that the complainant’s contract in 2023 clearly indicated the plan would automatically renew for 24 months after the minimum term, with all other terms and conditions remaining unchanged. It also claimed to have sent him a renewal notice, which advised that customers should notify the company at least 30 days prior to contract expiry if they did not wish to continue the service. Following the Council’s conciliation, Company C agreed to terminate the contract unconditionally, thereby resolving the case.
The Council reminds consumers to pay attention to the following when selecting telecommunications services:
- Choose telecommunications services that best fit one’s needs, rather than relying solely on advertisements or sales personnel’s recommendations. When confirming a service through a sales hotline, request the telecommunications services provider to issue a written contract as soon as possible. Review all contract terms and conditions carefully, including service details, charges, contract duration, and renewal and termination policies. If any information is found to be incorrect, promptly contact the services provider for follow-up. Keep the contract properly for future reference;
- Elderly or other vulnerable consumers may have specific needs in terms of telecommunications services. If unsure whether the sales personnel fully understand their needs, consider seeking company from friends or relatives when selecting relevant services so they could offer assistance or advice on-site;
- If planning to use data services abroad, compare different options (such as pocket Wi-Fi, data roaming services, data roaming day passes, and prepaid mobile data SIM cards) and thoroughly review the respective service terms and fee details. Before departure, check mobile phone settings to avoid incurring high charges due to misuse;
- Check billing statements every month, and promptly report any unidentified charges to the telecommunications services provider. In case of unresolved disputes with the services provider, seek assistance from the Council or the OFCA. In case of billing disputes, one may consider the mediation service set up by the telecommunications industry─the Customer Complaint Settlement Scheme (https://ccss.cahk.hk/). Furthermore, suspected violations of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance by licensed telecommunications operators or other services providers can also be reported to the OFCA or the Customs and Excise Department for further action.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/585-complaints
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.