About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 12
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Ms Justice Eileen Roberts

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts explained: “The reality is that whether or not the contract is one for an indeterminate duration, the imposition of a minimum commitment period brings this contract within the scope of Article 105(3). This is because such a contract contractually commits a customer to remain contracted to Sky for a fixed duration at the end of which the contract automatically continues until terminated.”

Background

In September 2024, ComReg commenced correspondence with Sky outlining its concern that Sky customers were not being provided with the information mandated by Regulation 89(6) of the European Union (Electronic Communications Code) Regulations 2022.

The 2022 Regulations transposed into Irish law Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC). Regulation 89(6) and Regulation 89(5) of the 2022 Regulations transposed Article 105(3) of the Directive.

In particular, ComReg alleged that Sky was obliged to provide end of contract notifications and best tariff advice to customers at the end of their commitment period and to provide those customers with best tariff information on an annual basis thereafter.

Sky’s contracts prescribed a minimum term of either 12 or 18 months, communicated to customers at the time of entering into their contract. Following the expiry of the minimum term, the contracts would roll over from month to month indefinitely, unless and until terminated by 31 days’ notice.

Sky contended that it was not required to provide the relevant information on the basis that its customer contracts are not fixed duration contracts, but rather are subscription contracts of indeterminate duration with no end date, falling outside the scope of Regulation 89(6).

ComReg issued proceedings seeking orders pursuant to s. 46 of the Communications Regulation Act 2002, as amended requiring Sky to cease from contravening Regulation 89(6).

The High Court

Ms Justice Eileen Roberts noted at the outset that the issue for determination was whether Sky’s contracts fell within the scope of Regulation 89(6) and Article 105(3).

Having set out the relevant statutory provisions, the court considered that it was critical that Sky’s contracts had a defined end date upon which the relevant minimum term would end, representing the date when the customer would become free to terminate their contract without an early termination charge and when their discounted tariff would come to an end.

Highlighting that in rolling over month to month indefinitely until terminated by notice, there was no practical difference between a Sky contract and the contracts of other providers which roll over after expiration of the relevant fixed period, Ms Justice Roberts explained: “I fail to see how it can be said that a contract which continues after the expiry of a minimum commitment period is not “automatically prolonged” when it continues on past that date, simply because it was described upfront as being of indeterminate duration.”

Sky contended inter alia that the mischief addressed by Article 105(3) was that a fixed duration contract gives the impression to a consumer that they are only signing up for a fixed term and that if that contract rolls over automatically a consumer may be unexpectedly “locked in”.

In this regard, Sky argued that this was not a risk not posed by its contracts and that its customers knew from the outset that the indeterminate contract would continue beyond the minimum commitment period.

In response to this point, the judge observed that this argument failed to take account of the fact that customers are told by other providers at the pre-contract stage that at the end of their fixed term, the contract would continue on the same terms unless terminated with 30 days’ notice.

The court reasoned that Article 105(3) assumes that customers might fail to read or understand information provided to them at the outset of their contract, or may have forgotten that information by the time they are free to terminate without penalty.

Finding it clear that the central purpose of the Directive, demonstrated by its Recitals, is to ensure that consumers are in a position to take full advantage of a competitive market, Ms Justice Roberts considered that the “timing of that information and advice is significant for customers who have been tied into a contractual commitment period for anything up to 24 months”.

Having regard to Article 105 as a whole, the court determined that it was clear on its plain wording and from a purposive interpretation that its express reference to ‘contractual commitment’ is “not limited only to fixed duration contracts as Sky describes them. A contract which specifies a fixed contractual commitment period which later automatically continues until terminated is just as much in scope of Article 105(3) and Regulation 89(6) as a contract specified to be for a fixed duration which later automatically continues until terminated.”

Ms Justice Roberts recognised that it would be too easy for providers to avoid compliance with the consumer protections mandated by the Directive if they could simply describe their contracts as ones of indeterminate duration while simultaneously locking in customers for a fixed duration, noting that the court must look at the reality of the legal relationship, must review it against the legislative requirements, and must apply a consistent approach to all providers.

Declining to make a reference to the CJEU under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the High Court was satisfied that Sky was required to comply with Regulation 89(6) by providing its customers with the mandated information on the expiry of their minimum periods of commitment and best tariff advice annually thereafter.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court granted ComReg’s application and listed the matter for final orders.

Commission for Communications Regulation v Sky Ireland Limited [2026] IEHC 12