Podcaster sues telcos, DStv over consumer rights violations

KaaTruths Podcast Limited and podcaster Ophoke Armstrong Amobi, otherwise known as KAA, have dragged four major telecommunications and pay-TV companies before the Federal High Court in Abuja, demanding N50bn in damages over alleged violations of consumers’ rights.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CV/886/2026, was filed on Friday, against MTN Nigeria Communications Plc, Globacom Limited, Airtel Networks Limited and MultiChoice Nigeria Limited, with the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission also joined as a defendant.

KaaTruths and its principal are challenging the companies’ practices concerning the expiry of unused data bundles and subscription periods, particularly where consumers are unable to fully use the services because of disruptions or other circumstances.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether contractual terms permitting unused data to expire solely because a stipulated period has elapsed are unfair, unreasonable and contrary to Nigerian consumer protection laws.

They are also seeking orders restraining the companies from continuing any practices that the court may find to be unfair or unlawful.

In the suit, the plaintiffs questioned what they described as an imbalance in the way telecommunications companies treat consumers’ data usage.

They argued that while a consumer’s data could be exhausted before the expiration date, any unused balance could be forfeited when the validity period ended, regardless of the quantity of data remaining.

The plaintiffs also challenged the forfeiture of data where consumers allegedly could not adequately use the service because of network disruptions.

The plaintiffs are equally challenging aspects of MultiChoice’s subscription model, particularly circumstances where subscribers allegedly continue to lose subscription time despite periods of non-use or service disruption.

They are asking the court to scrutinise the cancellation arrangements attached to the subscription services and determine whether they adequately protect consumers.

The plaintiffs argued that the case was not merely a dispute between them and the companies but raised broader questions concerning the rights of millions of Nigerian consumers.

Taking to his verified Facebook account, KAA, the podcast host, wrote: “This case is not merely about me. It is about millions of Nigerian consumers who pay for services and are expected to bear virtually all the consequences when those services are unused, unavailable, disrupted or expire.”

In one of the incidents cited in their statement of claim, the plaintiffs stated that they had purchased an MTN subscription costing N30,000, billed to last for 30 days.

According to the statement, the 5G Router, with Model Number ZLT X20 and IMEI number 869601050705412, supplied for accessing the service subsequently developed a fault.

He claimed that despite requesting cancellation, a refund or rollover of the unused subscription, the request was refused and the subscription eventually expired.

In another instance, a 75GB data subscription was allegedly exhausted in less than seven days despite intermittent network disruptions.

The plaintiffs said they were not provided with a satisfactory breakdown showing how the 75GB was allegedly consumed within the period.

They argued that consumers had for years complained about the practices on social media and other informal platforms without achieving meaningful changes.

“Enough complaining on social media. We are taking the questions to court,” Amobi stated in his Facebook post.

He maintained that the action was not aimed at preventing companies from making profits but at ensuring fairness in their dealings with consumers.

“This is not a fight against business. It is a fight for fairness in business. Companies have a right to make profits. But Nigerian consumers also have rights,” he said.

The plaintiffs are consequently seeking N50bn in general and special damages over the alleged violations of their consumer rights.

They also want the court to issue orders preventing the defendants from continuing practices found to be unfair and unlawful.

The plaintiffs said the action was intended to test existing commercial practices against consumer protection laws rather than rely solely on public complaints.

“If we believe a practice is unfair, we should be prepared to challenge it through the institutions empowered to determine what is lawful,” the post read.

The defendants were given 30 days after service of the writ, inclusive of the day of service, to enter appearance in the suit, failing which the plaintiffs may proceed and judgment may be entered in their absence.