The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has initiated legal proceedings against MultiChoice Nigeria Limited and its Chief Executive Officer, John Ugbe, for alleged defiance of regulatory directives concerning a subscription price hike. The core issue revolves around MultiChoice’s decision to implement price increases for its DStv and GOtv services despite an explicit instruction from the FCCPC to suspend the increases pending an investigation into their justification. This action has sparked a confrontation between the regulator and the dominant pay-TV provider in Nigeria, raising concerns about consumer protection, regulatory authority, and fair competition within the broadcasting market.
The dispute began on February 27, 2025, when the FCCPC issued a directive to MultiChoice, instructing the company to halt its planned price increase for DStv and GOtv subscriptions. The regulator’s intention was to conduct a thorough investigation into the proposed hike before allowing it to be implemented, ensuring that the increase was justified and not detrimental to consumer interests. However, MultiChoice disregarded this directive and proceeded with the price adjustments on March 1, 2025, a move that the FCCPC considers a blatant disregard for its regulatory oversight.
In response to MultiChoice’s actions, the FCCPC filed formal charges against the company and its CEO at the Federal High Court in Lagos. The charges encompass three specific counts under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018. The first count alleges that MultiChoice willfully obstructed the Commission’s inquiry by implementing the price hike despite the explicit directive to suspend it. The second count accuses the company of impeding the ongoing investigation by ignoring the instruction to halt the price increase. The third count focuses on MultiChoice’s alleged attempt to mislead the Commission by proceeding with the price hike without formally objecting to the directive or participating in the investigative process.
The FCCPC views MultiChoice’s actions as a deliberate attempt to undermine its regulatory authority, disrupt fair competition in the market, and deny Nigerian consumers the protections afforded to them under the law. By implementing the price increase before attending the scheduled investigative hearing on March 6, 2025, MultiChoice not only disregarded the FCCPC’s directive but also exhibited a pattern of behavior that disregards consumer rights and fair competition principles. This defiance raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between regulators and dominant market players and the effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms in protecting consumer interests.
Beyond the legal proceedings, the FCCPC is also considering further enforcement actions against MultiChoice, including sanctions and regulatory interventions. These measures are intended to ensure compliance with regulatory directives and hold the company accountable for its actions. The regulator aims to send a clear message that defying its authority has consequences and that consumer protection remains a paramount concern. The outcome of this case will likely have significant implications for the Nigerian pay-TV market and the relationship between regulators and industry operators.
Prior to the controversy, MultiChoice had notified its customers about the impending price adjustments, citing rising operational costs, particularly the increasing expenses associated with delivering premium content. The company justified the price hike as necessary to maintain its ability to offer world-class homegrown and international programming delivered through advanced technology. While the specific price increases for all packages were not detailed in the initial announcement, it was indicated that the DStv Compact package would be among those affected, while the prices for the Compact Plus and Premium bouquets would remain unchanged at N30,000 and N44,500 respectively. However, the FCCPC’s intervention has put these price adjustments on hold pending the outcome of the investigation and subsequent legal proceedings. The case highlights the tension between the business imperatives of media companies to adjust pricing in response to market dynamics and the regulatory mandate to protect consumer interests and ensure fair competition.
