A Supreme Court judge has found that Bermuda’s major telecommunications providers have a strong chance of success in their legal challenge to price controls imposed under the Regulatory Authority’s 2025 Electronic Communications Market Review.

In written reasons seen by The Royal Gazette this week, Puisne Judge Andrew Martin said One Communications and Digicel agreed with an earlier ruling that said the telecoms had “pretty good prospects of success” on key grounds of appeal, justifying an interim stay of several Regulatory Authority directives that were due to take effect on October 1.

Among the RA's decisions in the review were the controversial introduction of entry-level “anchor” products in the fixed broadband and mobile markets. Major providers would also be required to file quarterly key performance reports and undergo annual price reviews and adjustments. The RA said the changes were aimed at ensuring “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” access.

However, October’s ruling points to major concerns about how the market review was conducted.

The judge found that the Regulatory Authority relied on an international benchmarking study prepared by consultancy Plum that was not disclosed to the companies beforehand, denying them an opportunity to review or challenge the material used to justify the price reductions.

The court said the undisclosed benchmarking analysis “goes to the heart” of the authority’s conclusions, including the decision that Bermuda’s broadband prices were around 50 per cent higher than comparable jurisdictions.

In relation to mobile services, the court also accepted that no pricing analysis had been carried out to support the mandated introduction of a new entry-level “anchor” product priced at a maximum of $50 per month. Digicel had no opportunity to test the assumptions underlying that figure, the judge said.

The ruling was also critical of the implementation timeline. Mr Justice Martin noted that providers were given less than three weeks from gazetting of the final determination to comply, without being consulted on the timing. The court said the authority could and should have allowed more consultation before making the measures legally binding.

The judge accepted evidence that the measures would cause irreparable harm, including permanent changes to pricing expectations that could not be undone later.

The stay remains interim, with an inter partes hearing to follow, where the RA may seek to overturn the decision.