Misleading advertising in the telecom industry: may a provider promise ‘Fiber’ over a coaxial cable?

On Feb. 4, 2026, the president of the Antwerp Enterprise Court ruled in a case between Proximus and Telenet. The key question: may a telecom operator use the terms ‘fiber’ or ‘fiberglass’ in advertising if the connection to the customer's home is (partly) via a coaxial cable? The court's answer is clear: no, unless very strict conditions are met. The unsubtle use of ‘fiber’ for a hybrid network is a misleading trade practice.

The facts: FTTH vs. HFC

The dispute is between two telecom giants with different infrastructures. The plaintiff, Proximus, is rolling out a Fiber to the Home (FTTH) network, where the fiber optic cable runs inside the customer's home. The defendant party, Telenet, has a Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) network. In this, the network consists largely of fiber, but the “last meters” (from the street cabinet to the home) consist of the classic coax cable.

Proximus took offense to Telenet's marketing campaigns in which terms such as “fiber,” “fiberspeed” and “fiber that you already have” were used. According to Proximus, this creates the unjustified impression that Telenet customers have a full fiber connection, which differs in quality (including upload speed and stability) from a coax connection.

Enterprise Court's decision

The president of the Antwerp Enterprise Court ruled in favor of Proximus in the verdict of Feb. 4, 2026. The court ruled that the use of the term ‘fiber’ (or compositions and translations) for products that do not run over a full fiber network is misleading.

The court imposed a cease-and-desist order on Telenet. The provider may no longer use the term ‘fiber’ in product names or descriptions for non-FTTH products unless:

1. There is immediate and equally clear indication that it is not a fiber network and does not have the same qualities; or
2. The advertising will be shown only after a ‘fiber check’ has determined that the specific customer can actually be connected to fiber.

Attached to this injunction was a penalty payment of up to €1,000,000.00.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is an example of the application of the Code of Economic Law (CEL) on unfair business-to-business (B2B) market practices. Although Proximus is not a consumer organization, the court relied on consumer deception (Art. VI.97 CEL) as the basis for unfair competition (Art. VI.104 CEL).

Deception about the nature of the product The court confirmed that in the perception of the average consumer, the term ‘fiber’ refers one-to-one to a network consisting 100% of fiber to the customer's home. Labeling a hybrid network (HFC) as ‘fiber’ deceives the consumer about the nature and main characteristics of the product (art. VI.97, 1° and 2° CEL).

The ‘decoy practice’ An interesting aspect in the legal reasoning is the rejection of the ‘fiber check’ as a defense mechanism. Telenet argued that customers could check what technology was available through their website. However, the court ruled that this nuance comes too late in the decision-making process. At that point, the consumer has already been mentally “seduced” by the promise of fiber. This exhibits characteristics of a decoy practice: the customer is brought in with a misrepresentation.

Context and precedents The court also referred to previous opinions of the Jury on Ethical Practices (JEP), which had already ruled in 2011 and 2025 that the term ‘fibernet’ requires clarification. Telenet's argument that speeds differ little in practice for consumers was rejected. Indeed, marketing-wise, speed is presented as “blissful,” so the technological underpinnings are indeed an essential factor in the purchase decision.

As we discussed earlier in our blog Is your internet provider allowed to advertise “fibre” if you don't get it?, transparency in the telecom industry is important. This ruling confirms the trend of judges looking strictly at technical claims that the average consumer cannot verify on their own.

What this specifically means

This judgement has implications for several parties in the market:

• For consumers: You will be better protected from confusing terminology. In the future, if you see an offer for “Fiber,” it should mean that the fiber optic cable actually enters your home, or it should very clearly state that it is a coax connection. Transparency about exactly what you are buying increases.
• For telecom providers: Marketing departments need to review their terminology. Terms that are technically incorrect can no longer be dismissed as “marketing language.” The use of disclaimers (“asterisks”) is no longer sufficient if the main message is fundamentally misleading. The ‘fiber check’ must come before the promise, not after.
• For companies in other sectors: This ruling is a warning against “greenwashing” or “tech-washing.” Claiming features (such as ‘ecological,’ ‘AI-driven’ or ‘fiberglass’) that are only partially true poses a risk of strike claims for unfair competition.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is the difference between the Telenet and Proximus networks?
Proximus is currently rolling out an FTTH (Fiber to the Home) network in which fiber is laid right into the home. Telenet's network is historically an HFC (Hybrid Fiber Coax) network, where the last piece from the street cabinet to the home consists of coax cable. While Telenet is rolling out FTTH, it does not yet cover all of Belgium.

Can Telenet never use the word ‘fiber’ now?
Still. Telenet is allowed to use the term when the customer can actually be connected to their FTTH network (after a check). For their coax network, they may only use the term in combination with ‘coax’ (e.g. “Hybrid Fiber Coax”) for a technical description, or if they immediately and equally clearly warn that it is not a full fiber network.

As a customer, will I receive damages from this judgment?
No, this judgment concerns an injuction action between two companies (Proximus and Telenet). The goal is to stop the advertising campaigns. Consumers are not parties to this case. The verdict does force Telenet to communicate more honestly in the future.

Conclusion

The Feb. 4, 2026 judgement draws a clear line: technological claims in advertising must match reality. A provider may not profit from the positive perception of ‘fiber’ if the delivered product is technically different. This not only protects consumers in Belgium from being misled, but also creates a fairer playing field between competitors investing in different infrastructures.