How MultiChoice’s compliance history shapes its current FCCPC Dispute
When MultiChoice Nigeria announced its latest subscription price adjustment on March 1, 2025, it ignited different reactions from its customers. DSTV Premium, the highest bouquet on Multichoice offerings, moved from ₦37,000 to ₦44,500, and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) stepped in, ordering a suspension of the adjustment.
By March 3, MultiChoice had filed a lawsuit against the commission, leading to another installment in Nigeria’s long-running cable-TV drama.
It is natural for customers to complain about an increase, especially considering the state of Nigeria’s economy. However, many have viewed Multichoice’s decision to go to court as a refusal to play fair.
Beneath the controversy lies a more nuanced tale—one rooted in regulatory history, economic survival, and a growing debate about the limits of consumer protection in a free market.
MultiChoice’s pricing adjustments are not happening in a vacuum.
The state of Nigeria’s economy has not been great. Inflation hit 34.8% in 2024, and the Naira depreciated by over 24% in the last fiscal year. Operational expenses surged 76.6%, and prices of goods and products have climbed across sectors—from food to telecoms.
Despite this, DStv and GOtv remain among the most affordable pay-TV services in Africa. According to a report by SBM Intelligence, Nigerian subscribers still pay less than their counterparts in Kenya and South Africa.
While international giants like Netflix and Prime Video scale back in Nigeria, MultiChoice continues to invest. Over 28,000 Nigerians work directly and indirectly with the company. MultiChoice has committed over $469 million in taxes, $12 million in sports development, and millions more in education, healthcare, and local content.
In such a volatile environment, price reviews are not just about profit. They are survival strategies.
It is easy to mistake MultiChoice’s legal challenge as defiance or a deliberate attempt to frustrate customers. But let’s be honest, it would be extremely surprising to see a company with millions of Nigerian users openly defy the regulators, considering the implications it would incur.
A quick review of Multichoice’s actions in similar situations over the years shows a pattern of compliance and engagement with regulatory agencies like the FCCPC.
For instance, in 2016, the FCCPC (then known as the CPC) issued a series of directives: improve customer service, revise unfair contract clauses, and allow access to free-to-air channels. MultiChoice responded with practical changes and introduced toll-free lines, account holds during holidays, certified installers, and open access to select content to meet these requirements.
Another directive in 2019 required 24/7 customer support and toll-free numbers across networks. MultiChoice complied. Campaigns like DSTV Thanks, a loyalty programme that rewards loyal customers for choosing DStv and open-channel weekends, were introduced as goodwill gestures.
Even in 2022, after being investigated for abuse of dominance, the FCCPC found no wrongdoing, affirming the company’s right to its market position. This compliance record contrasts sharply with narratives of resistance, which begs the question: What inspired MultiChoice’s decision to contest FCCPC’s latest order?
At the heart of this legal standoff is an unresolved question: can the FCCPC set or suspend prices in Nigeria’s free-market economy?
M.J. Onigbanjo (SAN), Multichoice’s lead counsel, has argued in court that the FCCPC Act does not empower the commission to regulate pricing. “Prices should be determined by supply and demand. The FCCPC has acknowledged this in its own rulings,” he said at a recent Federal High Court session.
Legally, the power to set price ceilings in Nigeria lies with the President, not regulators. The NBC Act also lacks provisions to impose pricing controls on broadcast or cable services. As such, MultiChoice’s lawsuit raises fundamental concerns about regulatory overreach and economic freedom.
The ongoing legal dispute should be seen through the lens of regulatory evolution, not hostility. It is a debate about scope, boundaries, and the interplay between government authority and private enterprise. It is about whether policy can keep pace with the complexity of modern entertainment ecosystems.
As Nigerians await the Federal High Court’s verdict on May 8, the hope is for more than a legal resolution. It is an opportunity to spark honest dialogue about regulatory harmony in an economy that must balance consumer rights with commercial realities.
The question is not just whether MultiChoice can raise its prices. It is whether Nigeria can create a regulatory environment that encourages both accountability and enterprise.
In a country where the cost of survival rises daily, that’s a question worth answering with more than just outrage.
