Woman sues Cell company....is this a case

[IVY BEAUTY]

A Toronto woman says the billing practices of Rogers Wireless Inc. led to her husband discovering her extramarital affair.
Now the woman, whose husband walked out, is suing the communications giant for $600,000 for alleged invasion of privacy and breach of contract, the results of which she says have ruined her life.
In 2007, Gabriella Nagy had a cellphone account with Rogers which sent the monthly bill to her home address in her maiden name. Her husband was the account holder for the family's cable TV service at the same address. Around June 4, 2007, he called Rogers to add internet and home phone.
The following month, Rogers mailed a “global” invoice for all of its services to the matrimonial home that included an itemized bill for Nagy's cellular service, according to the statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
When Nagy’s husband opened the Rogers invoice, he saw several hour-long phone calls to a single phone number.

[Kevin]

Doubtful, but it's Canada, so I couldn't tell you.

[PsychTau]

I've got two things to say about this:

1. I don't know anything about this company, but if she had her own cell account with her own account number and did not have her husband's name on the account at all, I don't see how it would have gotten connected with the internet/phone package deal. Somehow, her husband was already an authorized person on her account or somehow he had access to her account information in order to bundle it. (It's possible that the company made a mistake and didn't verify their stuff).

2. I hope a judge looks at her and says "You should have kept your marriage commitment. This was your choice, not the cell company's. Take responsibility for your actions. Dismissed." Seriously...I understand that the law and judges need to simply handle the facts in front of them, but the fact is that if she wasn't cheating, this lawsuit wouldn't be happening. So, she's responsible for her husband finding out. Judges need to be able to tell people to grow up and take more responsibility.

(I know nothing about the law in Canada.)

/soapbox

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by PsychTau

1. I don't know anything about this company, but if she had her own cell account with her own account number and did not have her husband's name on the account at all, I don't see how it would have gotten connected with the internet/phone package deal. Somehow, her husband was already an authorized person on her account or somehow he had access to her account information in order to bundle it. (It's possible that the company made a mistake and didn't verify their stuff).

Pretty much.

When I worked for a bank, we had a lot of stuff like this going on (spouses with separate accounts that had other peoples' names on them). If the account was in just her name, it wouldn't have even shown up under her husband's profile (which would be the profile we'd pull up if he called). The only way that a "package deal" could be produced would be if both parties are listed as authorized users on both accounts.

I find it hard to believe that a cable company wouldn't follow similar guidelines. I'm guessing he was listed as an authorized user with access to her phone line.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Pretty much.

When I worked for a bank, we had a lot of stuff like this going on (spouses with separate accounts that had other peoples' names on them). If the account was in just her name, it wouldn't have even shown up under her husband's profile (which would be the profile we'd pull up if he called). The only way that a "package deal" could be produced would be if both parties are listed as authorized users on both accounts.

I find it hard to believe that a cable company wouldn't follow similar guidelines. I'm guessing he was listed as an authorized user with access to her phone line.

Possible they grouped them in their system as the same household even though they were different accounts?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Possible they grouped them in their system as the same household even though they were different accounts?

Could be.

When I worked at the bank, though, that didn't matter. There could be 3 adults in the same household with identical addresses/phones, but if the account titles (names) didn't match, they would show up separately.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PsychTau

1. I don't know anything about this company, but if she had her own cell account with her own account number and did not have her husband's name on the account at all, I don't see how it would have gotten connected with the internet/phone package deal. Somehow, her husband was already an authorized person on her account or somehow he had access to her account information in order to bundle it. (It's possible that the company made a mistake and didn't verify their stuff).

I've done it with our phone account that was in my wife's name. As long as I had her name and the last four digits of her SSN, there wasn't a question about it.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I've done it with our phone account that was in my wife's name. As long as I had her name and the last four digits of her SSN, there wasn't a question about it.

If this is common practice for these companies, something needs to change. That's just asking for trouble.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

. . . it's Canada, so I couldn't tell you.

This.

[RU OX Alum]

Yeah, who knows. Those Canadians and their Lacrosse.

[ApplePiePhi]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

Yeah, who knows. Those Canadians and their Lacrosse.

as a Canadian, I think it's a little more appropriate to say "and their hockey" - seems everyone's forgotten about the olympics already.

as for the OP, I would assume the case would be thrown out if it is found that her husband's name was on the account as well.
and I'm sure the states has just as many crazy legal stories as we do.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ApplePiePhi

and I'm sure the states has just as many crazy legal stories as we do.

Without a doubt. At least on my part, the "it's Canada" response was more to the fact that it's a legal system that can differ in enough ways from ours that we really wouldn't know what we're talking about.

[ApplePiePhi]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Without a doubt. At least on my part, the "it's Canada" response was more to the fact that it's a legal system that can differ in enough ways from ours that we really wouldn't know what we're talking about.

Oh I definitely knew it was in regards to Canada having a different legal system then the states (just like PsychTau mentioned). I would say the same in regards to American legal issues as well.

It was more of a response to the "blame canada" and the association with us and "our" sports, as if we're drastically different (or crazier) from the states.

But what do I know, I'm just a Canadian

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by ApplePiePhi

Oh I definitely knew it was in regards to Canada having a different legal system then the states (just like PsychTau mentioned). I would say the same in regards to American legal issues as well.

It was more of a response to the "blame canada" and the association with us and "our" sports, as if we're drastically different (or crazier) from the states.

But what do I know, I'm just a Canadian

Your bacon is different.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Anyway, the lax thing was meant as a loving jest. If I didn't like Canada, I wouldn't bother knowing that lacrosse is the National Game and not hockey, as many assume.

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ApplePiePhi

I'm sure the states has just as many crazy legal stories as we do.

You silly Canuck.

We in the United States have the best system in the world. It is truly the world's envy. We have managed to imprison more people per capita than China. CHINA!

We are so great that we have deemed it appropriate to share the greatness which is our legal system with the world via CourtTV (now truTV). Watch and be amazed at the superior system of your more civilized neighbor to the south.