Consumers NZ’s fifth annual review of mobile phone provider transparency has found standards at their lowest level since the reviews began.
With providers going backwards despite new Commerce Commission guidelines, Consumer NZ says voluntary measures are not delivering the change consumers need.
Why transparency matters
In November 2025, the Commission published its Mobile Transparency Guidelines, setting out expectations for how mobile providers should give customers clear information about their usage and spending.
Consumer NZ’s Nick Gelling says this information helps people identify whether they’re on the right plan.
“Heaps of people stay on plans that don’t suit them because they don’t know how much data they actually use or what they’re spending. Providers already hold that information. They should be making it easy for customers to compare their options and find a better deal.”
Gelling says the latest results show providers are moving in the wrong direction.
“After five years of reviews and ongoing engagement, 2degrees, Spark and One NZ are going backwards. That’s especially disappointing after the Commission spelled out its expectations in new guidelines.
“Customers shouldn’t have to keep waiting for basic information that could save them money. These results show the voluntary approach isn’t working.”
Mobile billing transparency over time
Provider results
The worst at 46%: 2degrees
“2degrees didn’t send customers an annual summary of their usage and spend between July 2025 and July 2026, while it fixed data issues stemming from a new IT platform,” Gelling says.
Because customers received no annual summary during that time, there was nothing for Consumer to assess in that part of the review, and it pulled 2degrees’ overall score right down to 46%.
“Annual summaries are a crucial part of keeping customers informed about whether they could be getting a better deal – and a bare minimum expectation according to the guidelines – so skipping them for an entire year is not a good look.”
2degrees has since resumed its annual summaries, which Consumer is happy to see.
Second place at 67%: One NZ
One NZ’s annual “your year in review” email gives useful information and meets most of the Commission’s expectations. But its mobile app still shows only 2–3 months of historical data – well short of the 12 months called for in the guidelines.
“One NZ’s app displays 12 months of information for broadband customers, so it’s clearly possible – they just need to present that for mobile customers, too,” Gelling says.
Best of a bad bunch at 69%: Spark
Spark topped the rankings because of its excellent app experience, but its annual email summary has deteriorated. It used to include a best-plan recommendation and information about usage, but it now contains little more than a prompt to open the app or website.
“If 69% is enough to win, that’s a clear sign there’s something not working here,” Gelling says.
Commission signals stronger action
Telecommunications Commissioner Tristan Gilbertson says the findings underline the need for stronger action.
“Consumers should be able to see what they’ve spent, what they’ve used and whether a different plan would save them money. Getting this information should be a basic part of good customer care.
“When consumers can easily identify a better deal, providers have to compete harder to win and retain their business. Poor transparency leaves consumers paying more than they need and weakens competition.”
“The three largest mobile providers have had years to get this right. These results show that things are getting worse rather than better. Voluntary action has not delivered the progress consumers need, so we will now need to reach into our regulatory toolkit to drive change.”
Note to editors
This review is conducted in partnership with the Commerce Commission, which regulates New Zealand’s telecommunications market.
