Formal Complaint: Unprofessional Misconduct by Agent "xxxxxxxxx", Fabrication of "EU Regulations" & Arbitrary eSIM Block

Hey ​@Fujun,

We’re glad you’ve reached out to us here in the o2 Community, and thank you for your detailed report. 

As o2 moderators, we have the ability to access customer records and assist customers with their concerns. 
In your case, unfortunately, you’ll need to contact Customer Service, as there’s nothing I can do about this. It’s best to do so in writing. 

As I see it, the card needs to be re-authenticated. 

If you’d like, feel free to keep us and the other o2 Community members updated. 

Greetings,
Flo

He is right. 
As Germany based company, the must follow 

§ 172 TKG

 * **Verification prior to activation (Section 172(2) of the Telecommunications Act):** Mobile network providers may not activate a SIM card until the accuracy of the customer’s personal information (name, address, date of birth) has been verified.
 * **Prepaid and Postpaid Regulations:**
   * The strict ID requirement was introduced in 2017 as part of an anti-terrorism package to prevent the completely anonymous use of **prepaid cards**.
   * For **postpaid contracts** (fixed-term contracts), a credit check and bank account details were often sufficient in practice. The Federal Network Agency has updated its interpretation guidelines to require that a reliable identity check (e.g., through ID verification) must also be conducted for fixed-term contracts to prevent fraud and identity theft.
### Permissible Verification Methods
The legislature and the Federal Network Agency stipulate which methods may be used for this verification:
 1. **In-person identification:** The personal presentation of an ID document at a mobile phone store or a post office (**PostIdent procedure**).
 2. **Video identification procedure:** Online verification via video chat, during which the ID document is held up to the camera and checked for security features by trained staff.
 3. **Electronic proof of identity (eID):** Directly scanning the ID card with a smartphone via the NFC interface (e.g., using the online ID function).
 4. **Automated procedures:** Special photo-based AI procedures (Photo-Ident), provided they are certified by a conformity assessment body and approved by the Federal Network Agency.
> **Important regarding documents:** Only official documents with a photograph that satisfy the passport and ID requirements within Germany (such as a valid ID card, passport, or corresponding residence permit) are permitted for verification. Documents such as driver’s licenses or health insurance cards are not sufficient under the law. 

My Reply to @o2_Flo and @AgentMax:

Thank you for your responses. However, both of you are completely evading the core legal and ethical failures of this case by hiding behind a generic explanation of § 172 TKG. Let me address the facts that you conveniently ignored:

1. Verification Compliance & Breach of Contract I have already fully complied with § 172 TKG. I uploaded my official passport, and your own system successfully verified my identity and activated the eSIM. The live chat agent, XXXX, explicitly admitted that the error lay entirely within o2's own website system. o2 unilaterally blocked my number to cover up its own technical glitch. This is a clear breach of contract by o2, not a failure of compliance on my part.

2. Illegal Rejection of EU Documents (Anti-Geoblocking) @AgentMax mentioned permissible verification methods. My official Austrian bank statement contains all my verified legal address information within the EU. Refusing to accept official documents from another EU member state (Austria) and strictly demanding a German residence certificate directly violates the EU Anti-Geoblocking Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2018/302). o2 cannot use German internal policies to override European non-discrimination laws.

3. Total Avoidance of Serious Agent Misconduct You completely ignored the severe misconduct of your representative. Agent XXXX fabricated a non-existent "EU regulation" to deceive me, changed his story to "department policy" once exposed, and then unilaterally hung up when I requested an escalation. This is not just a "technical issue"; it is a deceptive practice and a severe violation of professional customer service standards.

Edit o2_Antje: Deleted name of o2 employee / 23.05.2026

It is fine for you to use AI to formulate your texts here but you need to also understand the content of any referenced regulations. The Geoblocking regulation does not relate to whether or not you can enter into a contract with a mobile provider and companies are within their rights to require a (verified) address in Germany. The regulation stipulates only that IF they choose to provide service this must be subject to the same terms and conditions as apply to those with their habitual residence within the country. It is not therefore discrimination and is no different in Austria. Note that ID verification and address verification are not the same thing.

How did you place the order? Online it is not even possible to enter an address outside Germany.

Nobody here can deal with your complaint about the employee you had contact with. You can make a complaint via the appropriate channel if you feel strongly about this. It is hardly misconduct based on what you have written, but the conversation could certainly have been handled differently.

You can use the contact form to communicate with customer services.

Thanks for your perspective, @bs0. However, your interpretation of the EU Geoblocking Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2018/302) is factually incomplete and severely misleads other international consumers who might face the same issue in the future.

Once o2's official platform accepted my international passport, successfully validated my identity, and activated the contract/eSIM, a legally binding agreement was established. Unilaterally blocking an already active telecommunication service post-activation because the customer holds a verified address in another EU member state (Austria) rather than a German Meldebescheinigung is a clear discriminatory practice during contract performance under EU law.

Furthermore, regarding your suggestion to use the "contact form": as demonstrated in my attached screenshot, o2's official complaint and feedback architecture (o2.de/beschwerde) is completely broken and returning a permanent 404 error. Defending an agent who fabricated non-existent "EU regulations" to mislead a customer before abruptly ending the chat, while the company's internal complaint infrastructure is broken, is a highly questionable stance to take.

To close this discussion: This is not a matter for community debate. I have acting in complete good faith, whereas o2's system and agent have completely failed. A formal escalated dossier containing the full unredacted chat transcripts and system screenshots has been officially submitted to the Telefonica Germany Compliance & Legal Department via their statutory email channel today.

If a lawful resolution is not achieved within 5 business days, this case will be immediately forwarded to the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) for official regulatory arbitration. I will leave this thread open for other global travelers and digital nomads to see how the corporate compliance review unfolds.

I also understand your perspective, however, even after a contract has been concluded there are legally ways for it to be revoked under both German and EU law, for example, if it is determined that it was concluded due to an error. My "interpretation" of the EU regulation is not factually incomplete in respect of the facts you have presented, nor does it mislead. It merely refutes your point that this amounts to discrimination under EU law based on Geoblocking.

If you are looking for a contractual resolution, then you need to get in contact with o2 / Telefonica via an appropriate channel. The contact form (for complaints use "Andere Anliegen") can be found here: https://www.o2online.de/kontakt/. 5 working days would not, however, be a reasonable time frame. There is no such thing as a statutory email channel for a company's legal department. Where did you find reference to o2.de/beschwerde?

This is not an issue of corporate compliance, nor is it a regulatory issue for the BNetzA to adjudicate on, nor is the BNetzA an arbitrator. It does provide a platform for consumers to request conciliation (maybe you meant this) which, if your case is deemed suitable and your application is accepted, would enable you to receive support to try to reach a mutual agreement with o2 to resolve your dispute, though the process takes several months. The BNetzA can and will not tell Telefonica to reinstate your contract or to take action against an employee.

I completely understand that this situation is frustrating for you, but you seem to be somewhat on the wrong track as far as legal and regulatory issues are concerned. Having said that, it is of course possible that Telefonica agrees to make an exception and reactivate the contract as a goodwill gesture having looked at your case in detail. This would though potentially be discriminatory to other persons in the same position! If they do not, then of course they would be required to refund any payments you have already made. I am still unsure as to how you even managed to conclude the contract with an Austrian address in the first place.

It is very much a matter for community discussion if you post in a discussion forum. You do not of course have to continue to take part. Threads here are not closed and anyone is welcome to add to the discussion if they wish.