South Africa’s communications regulator has withdrawn its use of the word “collusion” to describe mobile operators’ shared stance on new consumer-protection rules, three days after using it in a briefing to Parliament.
The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) published a clarification on 14 August 2026, stating that it had received numerous requests for clarification regarding its position on the End-User and Subscriber Service Charter Amendment Regulations.
ICASA said it has “not conducted a market assessment or investigation that establishes collusion among the operators and no such finding has been made by the Authority”.
What was said, and when
On 11 August 2026, the Authority briefed Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Communications and Digital Technologies, where it raised concerns about what it called the shared industry position on the amendment regulations.
In the clarification, ICASA said the term was used to characterise its observation that competing licensed operators had arrived at aligned positions, and was not intended to suggest coordinated anti-competitive conduct.
Why the wording matters
Collusion is not a loose descriptive term in South African law. It denotes conduct prohibited under the Competition Act, investigated by the Competition Commission, and subject to administrative penalties. A sector regulator applying it to named licensees in a parliamentary forum is a serious statement, which is why the retraction followed quickly.
Operators arriving at the same position on a proposed regulation is also, on its own, unremarkable. Industry bodies exist to coordinate submissions, and licensees facing the same compliance cost will frequently object on the same grounds. That is lobbying, and it is lawful. Establishing collusion requires evidence of agreement to distort competition, which ICASA has now confirmed it has not gathered.
The underlying dispute is unresolved
The clarification does not settle the substance. ICASA said operators support the objective of the End-User and Subscriber Service Charter amendments, which is to protect consumers, while disagreeing with the Authority on substantive issues.
The statement does not specify which provisions are contested, provide a compliance date, or explain what happens next in the process. Readers looking for details of what the amendments require will not find them here, and ICASA has not published them alongside the clarification.
The Authority has had an active year on consumer-facing rules, having amended the numbering plan and licensed 18 community radio stations in recent months. The service charter amendments are the piece with the most direct bearing on what subscribers are charged and what recourse they have, which is why the industry response to them is worth following.
Leave a Reply