Vodafone, EE, O2, Three hit with £3B overcharging lawsuit

Steven

Vodafone, EE, O2, Three hit with £3B overcharging lawsuit

Summary

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has allowed collective action cases against Vodafone, BT/EE, O2 and Three to proceed over allegations that customers were overcharged after minimum handset contract terms ended. Plaintiff Justin Gutmann, acting as class representative, seeks more than £3 billion on behalf of millions of subscribers who, he says, continued to pay bundled (handset + service) monthly rates instead of reduced SIM-only prices once handset payments finished.

The tribunal limited claims reaching back before 1 October 2015 but refused to strike out claims reaching back only as far as 8 March 2017 for some operators. The CAT also approved Gutmann as class representative despite challenges to his funding and suitability. Operators have said they will defend the claims and dispute their merit.

Key Points

  • The CAT has certified collective actions against Vodafone, BT/EE, O2 and Three over alleged “loyalty penalty” overcharging.
  • Claimant Justin Gutmann seeks over £3 billion, alleging millions paid higher bundled rates after handset payment periods ended.
  • The tribunal struck out claims before 1 October 2015 but allowed later-period claims to proceed for parts of the timeline.
  • Operators deny the substantive allegations and say the ruling only addresses procedural and limitation issues at an early stage.
  • The case could affect many long-standing customers who stayed on the same plan after a contract ended and did not switch to SIM-only pricing.

Context and relevance

This case sits within a wider consumer-protection debate about so-called “loyalty penalties” — where long-term customers end up paying more than new customers. Citizens Advice and other consumer groups have flagged similar issues across utilities and telecoms. If successful, the claim could force refunds or changes in billing practices and prompt closer regulatory scrutiny of handset-bundled contracts.

For industry watchers, the ruling is a reminder that procedural wins (limitation periods, certification) shape how large-scale consumer claims progress and can materially reduce or concentrate potential exposure.

Why should I read this?

Quick version: if you ever bought a phone on a contract and then just stayed put once the handset term finished, this might matter to you. Big networks, big money, and potentially millions of customers affected — we’ve skimmed the legal bits so you don’t have to. Worth a read if you pay a mobile bill in the UK or follow consumer-rights stories.

Source

Source: https://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.com/2025/11/18/uk_mobile_overcharging_suit/