The Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP - French regulator of Telecommunications and Posts) granted a licence for a new entrant, Free, what was widely challenged. This allocation was made in exchange f a number of commitments of recipient, especially towards the virtual mobile networks operators (MVNO). Indeed, FREE must allow them to use its facilities and its authorisation, the satisfaction of the commitment which has the effect of fostering competition in the mobile phone market. However, some virtual mobile networks operators (MVNO) complained that Free would not respect its commitments in that the offer of host that FREE have made in exchange, of a higher price of retail price, which is contrary to the principle of opening up competition. The regulator opens proceedings against FREE.

The French telecommunications and postal regulator (ARCEP ­– Autorité de regulation des communications électroniques et des postes) has prepared a project of pricing of mobile call termination, that is to say the amount that an operator must pay to reach another user. Thus, when a subscriber of Orange mobile calls a subscriber of Free mobile, Orange gives money to Free. Inversely, when a subscriber of Free mobile calls a user of Orange mobile, Free gives money to Orange. The regulator notes that Free mobile, new entrant, have less subscribers than the three operators, and will therefore receive less money than the others. It's the reason why, it justify to his advantage a temporarily higher pricing, the time it finds its place in the competitive market of mobile phone. On April 12, 2012, the European Commission publicly expressed that the principle of an asymmetric pricing policy is insufficient. The French telecommunications and postal regulator (ARCEP – Autorité de regulation des communications électroniques et des postes) has responded by standing that the principle of asymmetrical pricing was not sufficient and that justifications will be provided.