Telefónica deberá pagar más de dos millones de pesos por_lines_asociadas_sin_autorización

La marquesina promises justice, but sometimes it only delivers a fine. In this case, the Cámara de Apelaciones de Neuquén confirmed that Telefónica Móviles Argentina must pay $600.000 for moral damages and $1.473.684,21 as a civil punitive fine to a woman who had four phone lines registered in her name without ever requesting them.

The woman discovered the problem in April 2023. Two lines were unlinked, but two others reappeared under her identity. The situation dragged on until December 2024, turning a supposedly administrative mistake into a long process of claims, presentations and court action.

During roughly seven months, she made four extrajudicial complaints. She filed presentations directly with the company, attended a pre-judicial conciliation instance and sent a formal letter in November 2023. She also started a hábeas data proceeding to challenge the use of her personal data.

The effective solution only arrived after going to court. On September 3, 2026, Sala B of the Cámara de Apelaciones in lo Civil, Comercial, Laboral y de Minería de Neuquén rejected Telefónica’s appeal and upheld the first-instance ruling.

• The company attributed the error to confusion between two clients with similar names.
• The judges took into account the four claims, the duration of the problem and the personal wear and tear caused.
• The court understood that moral damage can be proven through objective circumstances, without requiring specific psychological evidence.
• The company had accumulated 37 sanctions from the consumer protection authority in the previous five years.

The judges Nancy Noemí Vielma and Juan Manuel Menestrina considered that the uncertainty of being linked to services she had not contracted, and to debts she considered unfounded, went beyond the ordinary annoyances of a consumer relationship.

Telefónica challenged both the moral damages and the civil fine. The appellate court did not accept those arguments. The first-instance court had awarded $600.000 for moral damage and $1.473.684,21 for punitive damage, and both amounts remained in force.

This case is worth remembering because it puts a name and a bill behind a very common consumer frustration: being treated as the responsible party for something one never did. The ruling also reinforces that accumulated administrative sanctions can become relevant when assessing a company’s conduct. My view? It should have been the shortest call in the customer service office. The process, at least, made the lesson expensive. The woman who kept every receipt, claim and legal step deserves a mention: without her persistence, the lines would probably still be roaming around her name.