Create a free account, or log in

Telstra overcharges customers $30 million, but escapes with a formal warning

Telecommunications giant Telstra has been formally warned after investigations revealed it had overcharged more than 250,000 customers $30 million. The incorrect billing took place between 2006 and 2012, but the telco didnโ€™t investigate the situation until last year. The Australian Communications and Media Authority investigated the overcharges following self-reporting by Telstra. The excessive bills occurred […]
Yolanda Redrup

Telecommunications giant Telstra has been formally warned after investigations revealed it had overcharged more than 250,000 customers $30 million.

The incorrect billing took place between 2006 and 2012, but the telco didnโ€™t investigate the situation until last year.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority investigated the overcharges following self-reporting by Telstra.

The excessive bills occurred when the customers used international data roaming and incurred multiple โ€˜flagfallโ€™ fees for single data sessions.

Flagfall fees are initial fixed fees. These are also often charged for phone calls.

Telstra first became aware of the issue in early 2009 by a customer who had been incorrectly billed for overseas data usage.

The breach occurred because of a third-party contractor, but ACMA authority member Chris Cheah told SmartCompany that because Telstra was aware of the problem and didnโ€™t investigate it until 2012, it was at fault.

โ€œDuring investigations it was obvious it was caused by a third party, but its mistake was not looking into it back in 2009. When it finally looked at it in 2012, it had a problem,โ€ he says.

โ€œWhile the code says billing accuracy provisions donโ€™t apply when a third party is at fault, this only applies when the business has no knowledge of whatโ€™s going on.โ€

Telstra said overseas carriers had not provided it with the right information, but admitted fault in terms of incorrectly charging the customers.

Cheah says itโ€™s critical for telecommunications businesses to follow up on customer complaints to ensure theyโ€™re not in breach of the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code.

During the six-year period, 260,000 Telstra customers who travelled overseas were overcharged.

Telstra charges a 50 cent flagfall fee when someone connects to the internet while overseas, but it was found customers had been charged multiple times for single sessions.

This was the first time a billing issue of this nature was investigated by the ACMA.

A spokesperson for Telstra told SmartCompany it accepts the ACMA finding.

โ€œOnce we identified it [the incorrect charges] we put in place immediate steps to prevent it happening again. We also proactively notified the ACMA and began a process to fully refund customers and to apologise for this happening in the first place,โ€ the spokesperson said.

The ACMA issued Telstra with a formal warning for the breaches, but says it was unable to issue any other type of penalty.

โ€œThe ACMA isnโ€™t in a position to give a fine. There were three options โ€“ come to an informal agreement, issue a formal warning or thirdly give a direction to comply with the code,โ€ he says.

โ€œHad we been able to fine them, the question then would have been do we want to.โ€

Cheah says while Telstra had knowledge of the problem years before investigating, it took steps to rectify the mistake.

โ€œFirstly they self-reported to us, secondly they have put in place a compensation scheme and thirdly theyโ€™ve now made changes to their system and theyโ€™ve fixed the problems,โ€ he says.

When the breach was investigated in 2012, Telstra also temporarily ceased charging all flagfall fees until the problem was rectified.

Cheah says when making a decision about what type of order it will give, the ACMA looks into the circumstances to determine whether or not there are systemic issues.

โ€œIn the past we gave Telstra a direction to comply in regard to the privacy provisions in the code because Telstra was up to three breaches of these provisions,โ€ Cheah says.

โ€œTheyโ€™d developed enough of a pattern to warrant a direction to comply.โ€