Latin America

Colombian regulator refers mobile-plan cancellation channel failures to SIC

A first-day review found hard-to-find links and referrals to other channels. The competition and consumer authority will decide whether to investigate or sanction operators; neither outcome has been announced.

Colombia's Communications Regulation Commission (CRC) sent evidence of possible breaches of the new digital channel for cancelling mobile plans to the Superintendency of Industry and Commerce (SIC) on 2 October. Its review, conducted on the rule's first day, found links that were hard to locate and processes that redirected customers elsewhere. The referral enables the SIC to consider action; it is neither a sanction nor proof that every operator failed in the same way. [1][2]

Since 1 October, postpaid operators have had to provide a prominent, dedicated cancellation route on their website home pages and the main screens of their customer apps. Customers must be able to file a request there without first calling, visiting a store or passing through a retention team. The regulation also requires a warning that cancelling a mobile line means losing its number and a Unique Numerical Code, or CUN, to confirm that the request was filed. Existing service channels remain available to people who prefer them. [1][3][4]

The CRC's annex separates findings by operator and platform. On websites, Tigo's and Movistar's links appeared inside carousels; WOM's was nested in a postpaid menu; and ETB's sat under “My procedures”. The regulator could not identify a prominent home-page entry to Claro's exclusive channel. By contrast, it recorded independent routes in the Tigo, Movistar and ETB apps. It could not assess WOM's app because it lacked access credentials, a limitation that rules out conclusions about that app. [2]

The CRC began checking after seeing user complaints on social media, but did not treat those posts as sufficient evidence: it inspected sites and apps directly on 1 October. Blu Radio separately interviewed the regulator's director about the waiting times and obstacles the measure is intended to reduce. That interview provides context about cancellation experiences; this report's operator-specific findings come from the CRC's technical annex, not a customer survey. [1][2][4]

The SIC can investigate and impose sanctions, while the CRC writes the rule and monitors implementation. For operators, the case tests whether a regulatory right works in the interfaces customers actually use, rather than only in contract terms. For customers, the next verifiable steps are whether access points are fixed and what the SIC decides after receiving the file. The CRC gave no deadline for that decision or figure for affected users. Reporting fines or a quantified loss now would go beyond the available evidence. [1][2]

Report an error →