L. İ, a resident of the Kemalpaşa district in Izmir, terminated his subscription while the contract period was still ongoing after experiencing frequent disconnections and connection speed problems with the internet service. The company demanded a cancellation fee of 4,211 lira from the consumer.
L. İ, who paid the fee but believed it was unjust, applied to the Izmir Provincial Consumer Arbitration Board for a refund of the charge.
The Company's Defense
The internet service provider, whose defense was requested, argued that the service was provided over infrastructure belonging to another operator and that they had no direct authority to intervene in infrastructure failures. The company contended that the cancellation fee charged because the consumer ended the subscription before the contract term expired was in accordance with the legislation.
Landmark Ruling from the Consumer Arbitration Board
The Izmir Provincial Consumer Arbitration Board, which examined the application, evaluated it under the 'defective service' provisions of the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502. The board noted that the consumer could not benefit from the internet service for a long time, and ruled that the service provider failed to present concrete and technical evidence demonstrating that the service was provided in accordance with the contract and without interruption.
The ruling emphasized that the internet service did not meet the consumer's reasonable expectations and therefore constituted a 'defective service'.
It has been assessed that the consumer's statements regarding not being able to benefit from the service are consistent with the course of events. This situation shows that the service did not meet the consumer's reasonable expectations and constitutes a defective service. In this context, it is clear that in the event of defective service being provided, the consumer has the right to terminate the contract for just cause, and in this case, no cancellation fee can be demanded within the scope of the contract. Accordingly, it has been concluded that the consumer terminated the subscription for just cause due to the service not being provided properly, therefore the cancellation fee of 4,211 lira charged is not lawful, and the consumer's claim is justified.
Lawyer's Call to Consumers
The consumer's lawyer Ege Görkem Ertürk said that the cancellation fee should not be collected if there are justified reasons. Ertürk, noting that consumers can pursue their rights via e-Government, stated: 'Applying to the Consumer Arbitration Board is completely free. Even if they encounter an adverse outcome, they incur no financial burden. Therefore, I would like to remind citizens to apply without hesitation and that there is no risk involved.'
Ertürk emphasized that the consumer cannot be held responsible for the infrastructure provider using a subcontractor to obtain another infrastructure, and spoke as follows:
'The consumer cannot know whether the infrastructure is being obtained from Company A or Company B. No obligation can be placed on the consumer regarding this matter. I made the contract with Company A. Therefore, whether Company A obtains this service from another company is none of my concern. The company that the consumer deals with entirely in this matter is Company A.'