Finance

Anacom fines NOS €350,000 for contract changes

NOS has been fined by Anacom due to contractual changes affecting 821,000 subscribers, including ad interruptions in TV recordings.

31 August 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Anacom fines NOS €350,000 for contract changes — Archive photoPhoto: Altice · Wikimedia Commons · Public domain

Anacom announced on Monday that it has imposed a fine of €350,000 on telecommunications operator NOS. This penalty is due to the unilateral alteration of contract conditions that affected 821,641 subscribers.

According to Anacom, NOS introduced mandatory viewing of advertising in the automatic TV recording features without providing the required 30-day notice to customers as mandated by existing legislation.

The changes made by NOS occurred in a manner similar to prior measures that had already been applied to other operators, such as Meo and Vodafone, which were fined in April of this year for the same reason.

The operator has already announced its intention to appeal Anacom's decision, contesting the imposed penalty. The appeal will be examined by the relevant authorities, which will assess the legality of the contract changes.

The situation raises questions about the communication practices of operators and the need for transparency with their customers, especially regarding changes that could impact user experience.

As the regulatory entity for the telecommunications sector in Portugal, Anacom has mandated actions to ensure that operators comply with established regulations, aiming to protect consumer rights.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.