The telecoms regulator cannot direct Virgin Media to stop offering deals to customers who want to cancel and switch their broadband and TV services because the way in which it is done is a "non-hassling" activity, the High Court heard.
Comreg claims Virgin is not complying with Universal Service Regulations because it says the provider's process for switching acts as a disincentive.
This is because the only way a customer can cancel with Virgin in order to switch to a competitor is to go through a process in which they are obliged to hear an over-the-phone "sales pitch" offering them deals to stay with the company, Comreg says.
The regulator wants an order requiring Virgin to provide a two-stage process - similar to one already agreed to by Eir - allowing the customer to go straight to cancellation without having to hear the sales pitch.
On Thursday, in arguments opposing the Comreg application, Brian Kennelly SC, for Virgin, said it was their case that the regulator's interpretation of the prohibition on disincentives in the regulations was incorrect.
One of the key questions the court had to decide was whether that prohibition covers "non-hassling activity", which is what Virgin engages in when its staff speak to customers who want to cancel, counsel said.
His client maintains it does not and if that is so, then Comreg does not have the power to direct its two-step process, he said.
What is described as "save" activity does not prevent a provider from giving reasonable, accurate and non-hassling information to a customer who is thinking of switching, he said.
Comreg is also seeking that Virgin amend its terms and conditions so customers do not have to serve a 30-day notice period before switching and that no notice period should apply at all.
Mr Kennelly said 30-day notice periods are standard and not, as Comreg says, a charge for switching. The customer is not paying twice but is still getting the Virgin service during that period and they can organise to pay their new provider when the 30 days ends.
Comreg had also alleged Virgin gives misleading or inaccurate information, but Mr Kennelly said this claim is unsubstantiated.
It was inconceivable that the relevant legislation was intended to prevent a provider from offering a better deal to a customer, or that such offers act as a disincentive, he said.
The hearing before Mr Justice Denis McDonald continues.
