Anatel Dismisses Competitors’ Anti-Spam Complaint Against Vivo, Backs Filtering System

Telefônica Brasil’s mobile unit, Vivo, has prevailed in the first major regulatory challenge against its automatic call-blocking tool, Vivo Anti-spam, after Brazil’s National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) dismissed competitors’ claims that the service was anticompetitive. The system, which is automatically activated on new Vivo lines to combat fraudulent “robocalls” and number “spoofing,” had become the center of a growing dispute after at least seven rival operators formally petitioned Anatel, the country’s telecom regulator, arguing the tool illegally blocks legitimate business traffic.

The dispute intensified as competitors, including TIM, Adyl Telecom, and 3corp, presented evidence that the aggressive filtering mechanism was interrupting essential communications. Reports submitted to Anatel cited cases where the system blocked calls from organizations like hospitals, public safety services, and municipal government agencies. One operator, Adyl Telecom, reported over 16,000 blocked calls, while 3corp claimed the service disrupted communications for 800 public sector phone numbers in a single municipality in São Paulo state. The core issue is that Vivo Anti-spam blocks calls at the network level based on its own algorithms, unlike common apps that only flag a call as suspicious to the user. Vivo defended the feature, stating it only targets mass, unauthenticated calls and provides an option for subscribers to deactivate the service and a review channel for affected businesses.

In a pivotal recent decision, Anatel’s Competition Superintendence found insufficient evidence to characterize Vivo Anti-spam as a violation of sector regulations or as an anticompetitive practice. This ruling effectively validates Vivo's right to use its proprietary tool to protect its customers from the wave of abusive telemarketing calls that have become a major consumer frustration in Brazil. Anatel has been actively regulating against excessive robocalls and short-duration calls across the industry, requiring all major operators, including Vivo and Claro, to report data on high-volume traffic.

While the regulator rejected the claims of anticompetitive behavior, it did not give Vivo unrestricted license. The superintendence recommended that Anatel’s other departments study Vivo’s approach as a potential model for the entire sector, suggesting an industry-wide solution to spam. Crucially, the regulator also mandated that Vivo must increase transparency, requiring the company to publish information about its filtering criteria and how its system functions to ensure it does not unduly impede legitimate calls. The final resolution must strike a balance that protects the consumer from digital fraud while preserving the flow of critical information from public services.