Russia's Big Four Telecoms and Major Banks Agree to Paid Call Labeling After Blocking Threat

The agreements mean incoming calls from the banks will soon display the lenders' names on smartphone screens, according to the ministry, which did not specify which banks signed. It said labeling is intended to help subscribers identify calls and reduce the risk of fraud by people posing as bank employees.

Alfa-Bank, VTB, Sber, T-Bank and others had previously been reported as not having concluded contracts with the operators. Mandatory labeling of calls from companies and entrepreneurs has been in force in Russia since September 1, 2025. Under a government decree, the operator must transmit information about the calling organization, including its name and category of activity.

Operators charge separately for the service, on average about 30 kopecks per call attempt, including when the subscriber does not answer. Cost was the main point of contention. The banks argued that legislation places the duty to transmit caller information on the telecoms and disputed the need for separate paid contracts.

Banks estimated annual labeling costs at about 11 billion rubles at a call price of 20 kopecks. Other market participants cited figures of up to 20 billion rubles, with one large bank's costs potentially reaching a billion rubles a year. The scale of the expense stems from call volumes: five banks alone — Alfa-Bank, Sovcombank, VTB, T-Bank and Sberbank — made about 86.4 million calls through one operator's network in a single month, according to a count by The Insider. At an average labeling cost of 30 kopecks per call, that would amount to about 25.9 million rubles a month in one network alone.

In September, the Big Four operators warned they would stop passing unlabeled calls from seven major banks — Alfa-Bank, VTB, Gazprombank, Renaissance Credit, Sberbank, Sovcombank and T-Bank — from October 15. The deadline was later moved to November 13. Digital Development Minister Maksut Shadaev asked Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina to influence the lenders to avoid negative consequences for their clients.

In October, the National Council for the Financial Market, which represents banks' interests, complained to the Federal Antimonopoly Service about the operators' actions. It argued that the coordinated threat to block calls could indicate abuse of collective dominant position. The outcome of the complaint has not been publicly disclosed.

Court practice had already been tilting toward the operators. In September, the Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court upheld two rulings in suits brought by the microcredit company Srochnodengi against MTS and Vympelcom. In one case, the court deemed lawful the charging of three separate fees for a single call: for the telephone connection, for processing a mass call and for displaying information about the calling organization. The court said mass-call and labeling services are provided before a connection is established, so the operator may charge for them even if the recipient does not answer.

MegaFon said it had agreed commercial terms with all banks, and MTS said it had completed the necessary formalities. Beeline reached agreements with the largest lenders at the end of October. T2 called the solution a compromise.