📋 Tender Overview
The court rejected the Public Civil Action promoted by the Federal Public Prosecution Service (MPF) against the National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) and Claro S.A requiring the defendants to disclose on their websites a list of decoders certified by the agency. The Attorney General of the Union (AGU), representing Anatel, demonstrated that the claimed right is already guaranteed by rules and the inspection of the regulatory agency.
In the action, the MPF also called for greater transparency in information to consumers about the right to use their own compatible devices. The MPF claimed that the lack of information made the consumer impossible to acquire autonomously, in the market or third parties, the device that allows the reception of signals from the internet network, thus configuring married sale.
During the process it was proven that Anatel already makes available on its website the list of the approved decoders. The AGU also pointed out that there is no legal device that determines the operators to replicate this information on its own sites.
Consumer law
The Federal Regional Attorney of the 4th Region, Unit of the Federal Attorney Generals Office, recalled that Resolution No. 632/2014 ensures the consumer the right to hire the subscription TV service without the need to locate or buy reception unit provided by the operator.
In addition, it argued that Resolution No. 581/2012 requires service providers to provide the technical specifications of the decoding needed to connect to the network, as well as installation guidelines.
Federal Prosecutor Jeferson Thiago Sbalitariro Lopes, who acted in the case, explains that Anatel agrees with the MPFs concern, but points out that the issue is adequately answered through the regulatory rules of the municipality.
Finally, the Attorneys Office mentioned that the rental of appliances by operators is a legitimate practice and meets most consumers. In the last four years, there has only been one complaint about the lease of decoders, which reinforces the adequacy of current practice, says Jeferson.
Judicial decision
The court of the 3rd Federal Court of Florianopolis understood that both Anatel and Claro already provide information about the approved devices, making judicial intervention unnecessary, and declared the unfounded action.
The court agreed that Anatel complies with consumer law adequately and legitimately exercises its legal task, being unnecessary any corrective intervention in this case, concluded the Federal Prosecutor.
Special Advisory of Social Communication of AGU
