Eight hundred euros for the freedom to choose, or what an operator may and may not charge for taking your number with you

We are used to mobile operators competing for us. They call, offer a lower price, more data, better terms. That is how a market is supposed to work, and that is precisely why the European Union (hereinafter the “EU”) has for years been building its electronic communications framework around one clear goal: a customer must be able to switch, without obstacles, to whichever operator offers the better deal. Keeping your number when you move to another operator is the foundation of that system; without it, competition would remain on paper.

I recently came across a situation that shows what happens the moment price stops working as an argument. Several years ago my firm switched to an operator that offered better terms than the previous one. This September another operator offered terms that were better still, and the firm decided to move. The incumbent operator, realising that a lower price would not stop the switch, chose a different route: in a telephone call, its employee announced that switching would cost around EUR 395 for each of the two numbers — just under EUR 800 in total. A few days later, an e-mail named the same amount for a single number only. Neither the call nor the e-mail indicated which clause of the contract the claim rested on or how the amount had been calculated.

This prompted me to look into the question more closely, and the answer turned out to be clearer than the operator would perhaps have liked.

EU law is unambiguous on this point. The European Electronic Communications Code provides that the conditions for terminating a contract must not act as a disincentive to changing service provider. The Court of Justice of the EU applies this principle consistently and reads contracts by their substance, not by their labels: charges that deter a customer from switching operator run counter to the purpose of the rules, and a contractual penalty that bears no relation to the provider’s actual loss is not compensation but a deterrent. In other words, an operator may claim from a departing customer only the amount it can prove to be its loss — and the burden of proof lies with the operator, not the customer.

The Latvian Electronic Communications Law adopts the same logic. No fee may be charged to the end user for the number portability service. A contract of indefinite duration may be terminated at any time without a penalty, on one month’s notice. A contractual penalty is possible only where the customer has personally signed a fixed-term contract and leaves before it expires — and even then only in proportion to the remaining term. Above all of this stands the requirement of the Civil Law that a contractual penalty must be proportionate and consistent with fair commercial practice, and that an excessive penalty is to be reduced by the court.

So where do eight hundred euros come from? It is worth looking at how operators’ contracts are built. The contract is drafted so that, on its face, termination looks like the repayment of a full discount — as if, from day one, the customer had been granted a large discount off some “real” price, which must now be given back. In reality, that large price is an abstract figure that no customer ever pays. It serves a single purpose: to provide, formally, a base from which to calculate an early-termination amount. The operator has not invested money in the customer that it cannot recover; it has written a price list with two columns and called the difference a discount. That has nothing in common with loss as the Court of Justice understands it. In my case, moreover, the contracts had been concluded for an indefinite term, and the discount period had ended two years earlier.

The firm sent the operator a letter. It contained no threats and no reference to the courts — only a request to state in writing, within ten working days, which clause of the contract and which legal provision each claim was based on, how it had been calculated, and which of the operator’s losses it compensated. Until a reply was received, the firm continued to pay for the services actually received. No justification followed — the operator withdrew its claims.

What can be concluded from this? First, a demand for justification is a strong enough tool in itself. An amount named over the telephone, without a contract clause or a calculation, more often than one might think turns out to be nothing more than an attempt. Second — and this will surprise many — the Electronic Communications Law extends consumer rights to micro-enterprises, small enterprises, associations and foundations as well, unless they have expressly waived those rights. In this respect, a law firm, an accounting practice or a family business with two numbers is just as much a consumer as a private individual. Third, the rules favour the customer, but they work only for the customer who knows them. Most customers pay the EUR 800, because it is not an amount for which one seeks a lawyer. That is exactly what this practice relies on.

I leave the assessment of such conduct by operators to the reader. But if you are ever quoted a “penalty” for wanting to leave, remember this: under EU law, the freedom to choose your operator is not a paid service. It is a right, and it is the operator’s duty to prove that your departure has actually caused it a loss. Until that has been done, there is nothing to pay.

Riga,
26 October 2026

Jānis Zaļais, Sworn Attorney,
Jāņa Zaļā zvērinātu advokātu birojs (Law Office of Sworn Attorney Jānis Zaļais)