Is your internet provider allowed to advertise “fibre” if you don't get it?

You see it everywhere: ads for superfast Internet with ringing terms like “Start Fiber” or “Giga Fiber.” But what if that ‘fiber’ is not the full fiber optic cable to your living room, but a combination of fiber and the older coaxial cable network? A ruling by the Antwerp Court of Appeal on 30 April 2025, clarifies: this is a misleading and unfair market practice unless the provider immediately and clearly informs you of the true nature of the network.

The facts: a battle over ‘fiber’ versus ‘hybrid’

The case was brought by Proximus against competitor Orange Belgium. At the heart of the dispute was Orange's systematic use of the term “fiber” in product names, on websites, billboards and even in radio spots. Proximus, which is itself investing heavily in a network of 100% fiber to the customer's home (known as ‘Fiber to the Home’ or FTTH), argued that Orange was misleading consumers.

Indeed, Orange's network largely uses a ‘hybrid’ network, in which the fiber stops at the street cabinet and the final stretch into the home runs through a coaxial cable (known as HFC or ‘Hybrid Fiber Coax’).

Orange defended itself by stating that on their website they placed an asterisk (*) with a footnote that specified, “Fiber: Fiber technology with coaxial connection”. They believed that consumers would not necessarily think of 100% fiber and that this explanation was sufficient.

Appeal court decision

The Antwerp Court of Appeal reformed the first judge's ruling and largely vindicated Proximus.

The court found that Orange's use of the term “fiber” constituted an unfair market practice, specifically a violation of Articles VI.95, VI.97 and VI.104 of the Code of Economic Law (CEL).

The court's reasoning was clear:

1. “Fiber” means 100% fiber: In Belgium, the term “fiber” (or “fiber optic”) is well established and refers one-to-one to a network consisting of fiber 100% to the customer. In contrast, a hybrid network is called a “coax network,” “cable network” or “HFC network”.
2. Consumers are being misled: By using the term “fiber” for HFC products, Orange is misleading consumers about the “main characteristics of the product”.
3. Influencing the purchase decision: This deception can lead the average consumer to make a decision on a transaction they would not have otherwise made. An Ipsos study submitted by Proximus showed that 81% of interested consumers dropped out after it was explained to them that it was not 100% fiber.
4. Asterisk and footnote do not suffice (in this case): The court ruled that Orange's current clarifications-such as a “tiny (often illegible) footnote” that “disappears at random”-do not eliminate the wrong impression.

The court imposed a prohibitory injunction order on Orange. Orange may no longer use the term ‘fiber’ for its hybrid products unless it states “clearly and legibly in the same visualization or audio” that it is a “coax network,” “cable network” or “hybrid fiber coax network.

In the event of non-compliance, Orange risks substantial penalty payments, up to €20,000 per web page or online advertisement, with a maximum of €500,000. Orange was given a two-month transition period.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is legally interesting because of the application of the concept of ‘the average consumer’. The court here follows European case law, but makes an important distinction.

The central question is always: is the “average informed, cautious and observant consumer” being misled? The assessment looks at the overall impression of the advertisement; consumers generally do not pay attention to all the details.

This is reminiscent of the well-known Teekanne ruling of the Court of Justice. There it was ruled that a package of fruit tea was misleading due to images of raspberries, even though the (correct) ingredient list stated that it contained only flavorings. The small print did not correct the dominant, misleading impression.

The court of appeal applied this logic, but with a crucial nuance: consumers' attention level is much higher when choosing an expensive Internet subscription than a cheap pack of tea.

Therefore, a corrective message (such as an asterisk or footnote) may be sufficient in this case to eliminate the deception. But, and this is the crux of Orange's condemnation, that correction must then meet strict conditions: it must be consistent, correct and clearly legible. A hidden footnote that sometimes appears and sometimes does not, absolutely does not suffice.

The court also dismisses the argument that telecom is a “technical matter.” It is just the company's duty to translate this complexity and inform consumers in an understandable and non-misleading way.

What this specifically means

• For consumers: You have a right to clear information. Be critical when you see the term “fiber.” This ruling confirms that you should not be misled. Actively look for clear mention of “hybrid” or “coax” in the same advertisement.
• For advertising providers (such as Orange): Marketing practices should be changed immediately. The use of “fiber” for HFC networks is allowed only if the correction (e.g., “hybrid fiber coax network”) is equally prominent and clearly legible, and in the same visualization or audio message. Hidden footnotes have become a legal and financial risk.
• For competitors (such as Proximus): This ruling protects investment in a 100% fiber network. It creates a level playing field where clarity about the technology used is central and prevents the value of the term ‘fiber’ from being eroded.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Is the term ‘fiber’ now completely banned for providers like Orange?
No. The court does not ban the term, but attaches a strict condition to it. Orange may continue to use “fiber” provided it “clearly and legibly indicates in the same visualization or audio” that it is a “coax network,” “cable network,” or “hybrid fiber coax network” that is not made up entirely of fiber.

What is the technical difference between ‘fiber’ (FTTH) and ‘hybrid fiber coax’ (HFC)?
In a 100% fiber optic network (FTTH), the fiber optic cable runs uninterrupted from the exchange to your home. In an HFC network, the fiber runs to a distribution point in your street (the ‘optical node’), after which the signal travels the final meters over traditional copper coaxial cable (from cable television).

What is an ‘unfair market practice’ under the law?
This is a commercial practice that is misleading or aggressive and thereby “causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision that he would not otherwise have made” (Art. VI.97 CEL). In this case, the court ruled that the incorrect use of ‘fibre’ could mislead consumers about the characteristics of the product, which influenced their purchasing decision.

Conclusion

This ruling is a clear victory for transparency towards consumers. The Court of Appeal confirms that in Belgium marketing terms must cover the load, especially when it comes to expensive and technically specific products such as Internet subscriptions. A ‘half’ fiber may not be sold as a ‘full’ fiber unless the consumer is immediately and unambiguously made aware of it.