That market is not really free, but government regulated and mandated and the government says they are fine to do this (as far as I know, I do not live in spain).
If you have to sue your provider just to get a normal service then society has already failed. I can only imagine you're an American for litigation to be your go-to solution.
I rarely encounter a company that doesn't scam me to the maximum extent it thinks it can get away with. That extent is determined by how many customers sue them.
Note, litigation being the "go to" solution of the American system is intended. The civil courts were basically supposed to solve all problems. Which is why they work great for rich people.
All the memes about America being "litigious" are intentional. It is incredibly difficult to seek preventative justice in the US. The intent is that you must be harmed first and then be made right.
It's a system dreamed up by wealthy aristocrats who were openly against slavery but owned people anyway and assholes who had the audacity to claim the constitution was "We the People" even though it excluded most people and was drafted entirely without authority to do so (defensible, the articles of confederation were utterly failing) and purposely built a system where people didn't vote for representation (because they didn't want a society representative of average people) and the few idealists who were far too stupid or gullible to go along with all of this. Tons of them were lawyers.
We don't, for example, have an ombudsman I can go to and complain about a business maybe not following the law and get the government to essentially be my advocate. We instead are forced to sue that company, and prove in court, with vastly unequal resources, that we deserve remedy.
Our judicial system is also clearly preferential to corporations over people, and refuses to hold corporations to justice, even when they have been objectively found wrong!
The jury of her peers awarded the McDonalds hot coffee lady $2.7 million (explicitly "two days of coffee revenue") because there was clear negligence and refusal to act safely after burning tens of other people and being outright warned about their coffee temperature, and the judge decided to unilaterally reduce that payout to half a million! He said the payout "must be reasonably related to the injury" and admitted Mcdonalds had acted recklessly and caused the injury and acted with "wanton and callous behavior" and the judge STILL reduced the clearly valid jury verdict by a huge amount! God forbid a company actually pay for their clear and reckless disregard!
