Hot Mobile to Compensate Customers Nearly 15 Million Shekels for Unrequested Service Charges
Translated & summarized from Globes by baba
Hot Mobile will pay nearly 15 million shekels to over 785,000 customers for charging an unrequested international calls package, following a court-approved class-action settlement. The company updated its procedures to ensure clearer customer consent, while the Attorney General opposed the deal, citing concerns over implied consent and fee payments. The court approved the settlement but delayed enforcement pending appeals.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Hot Mobile charged customers for an unrequested international calls package over seven years.
- The settlement covers 785,291 customers with compensation around 15 million shekels.
- Compensation equals 40% of the alleged unlawful charges, payable as refunds or benefits.
- Hot Mobile updated sales procedures to clarify service details and allow removal anytime.
- The Attorney General opposed the settlement over implied consent and attorney fee timing.
- The court approved the deal but stayed enforcement pending related appeals.
The Tel Aviv District Court approved a class-action settlement requiring Hot Mobile Ltd. to compensate customers approximately 15 million shekels for charging them for an unrequested "international calls package" service. The lawsuit alleged that Hot Mobile billed customers for this service without their consent over the past seven years. The settlement covers 785,291 eligible subscribers, with compensation amounting to 40% of the allegedly unlawful charges, including VAT, linkage differentials, and interest. Customers can choose to receive the compensation as a refund or as service benefits.
Hot Mobile denied any breach of consumer obligations, asserting that the charges were lawful. The court noted that Hot Mobile has since updated its sales and service procedures to clearly inform customers about the service and allow its removal at any time. Notifications will be sent to affected customers to inform them about the charges.
The Attorney General opposed the settlement, arguing it allowed implied rather than explicit customer consent and raised concerns about the timing of attorney fee payments, which she believed should incentivize settlement implementation. Despite these objections, the court approved the agreement but stayed its execution pending appeals related to similar cases. The court emphasized the settlement's fairness and its benefit in avoiding prolonged litigation.