back to article Canadian mobe firm sued over disappearing husband

A disgruntled woman is suing Canadian telco Rogers Wireless for destroying her marriage. The mobile provider bundled her cellphone bill in with bills for internet access and cable TV which it sent to her husband. He opened the bill and found she had made several hour-long calls to one number. Hubby called this number and …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Coat

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaaa-

-aaaaahahahahahaha. Classic. I love the desperate attempts to deflect blame and admonish an innocent party for someone else's wrongdoing - Only In American. Hopefully this gets thrown out of court with a severe reprimand for wasting court time as soon as the case is heard, what a ridiculous couldn't-make-it-up story.

Mine's the one with a separate paper bill in it

1
9
Anonymous Coward

Rogers may not be innocent in this ...

Rogers may not be innocent in this, but even if they did something wrong, the scale of it is certainly less than the woman's error.

0
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Uhh, no...

"I love the desperate attempts to deflect blame and admonish an innocent party for someone else's wrongdoing - Only In American[sic]"

Or, in a more accurate sense, CANADA.

3
0
FAIL

Re:Hahahahahahahahahahahahaaa

@Christopher "Only In American"...?

First of the country your thinking of is called 'America', and secondly the company and woman are in Canada

1
1

Only where?

By "Only In American", you of course mean "only in Canada"....

1
0
FAIL

RE: Hahahahahahahahahahahahaaa-

"Only In American."

Technically, that would be "only in America" (no "n") except that it isn't. The phone company is Canadian and the story is reported in a Canadian newspaper, so the woman (and her former husband) is more than likely Canadian. It's called "reading comprehension." You ought to try it sometime.

1
0
Terminator

"Only in American?"

Ummm... "A disgruntled woman is suing CANADIAN telco Rogers Wireless for destroying her marriage." I mean at least insult the appropriate population! Damn Canuks are only holding our natural resources for us (Americans) until we use up everything within our traditional borders anyway.

Terminator because THEY (CANADIANS) know what's commin. Don't saw you weren't warned.

*giggles*

0
0

Canada..

Not American

0
0

_Not_ living in America ( with suitable apologies to Mr J Brown)

From the reply:

" Only in American".

From the posting ( my emphasis):

" A disgruntled woman is suing _Canadian_ telco Rogers Wireless for destroying her marriage."

It might surprise some to find out that Canada ( Canadian - it's a clue!) is not in America. Of course, I cannot speak to whether or not the complainant is in fact from south of the large grey blob that appears on most American weather maps... while getting blamed for all the bad weather :-).

1
0
WTF?

@HAHAHAHAHAHA (No Rogers Communication in the USA, only Canada)

Christopher,

Just for the record, Rogers Communication is only available in Canada, not the USA.

I just love it when you folks in Europe (how do you like them apples) lump everything that happens in North America under the banner of "Damned Yankees". On the other hand, perhaps El Reg could have included more detail in the article.

I learned a long time ago that you should get out of your current arrangements before you look for new prospects, though many people do make stupid mistakes in the heat of passion.

Looks like this gal reaped what she sowed and doesn't deserve much pity least of all from the Canadian justice system. She should have asked for the "No detailed billing" option if they offer it.

I suppose after her husband checked the phone bill he might have also checked her browser history but it sounds like he must have gone right to the source and heard the answer no spouse ever wants to hear. Can't blame him for leaving.

1
1
Headmaster

only in America?

Other than the fact this happened in Canada, that's an interesting observation.

0
0
Headmaster

But but but but

But Canada *is* in America!

Bit harsh of the OP to make such a sweeping generalisation about a whole continent (or 2 continents, or even 3 if you count Central), but still valid nonetheless. Now if s/he'd said "Only in USAian", that'd be another matter...

1
0
Headmaster

Well, if you want to get technical,

Canada is in the continent of North America.

That and we like to joke about how Canada is the 51st state.

0
0
Silver badge
Flame

Only in AMERICA

Yes, it happened in AMERICA.

You are not the only people on this continent all you US citizens.

0
0
FAIL

@ _Not_ living in America

Actually, for the benefit of yourself and all the other pendants, this story did take place in America - where Canada can be found, along with the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Honduras, Cuba, Jamaca, Trinidad-Tobago, Colombia, and several other countries whose names I can't be bothered to look up at the moment.

In other breaking news, the UK is in Europe.

1
0
Thumb Up

Canada

America's hat.

http://www.bustedtees.com/canadaamericashat

0
0
Paris Hilton

lulwut?

Canuckia is a country in North **America**.

So to say America is just as *accurate* as Canuckia, it is merely less *precise*.

Paris for the stupidity of that which this comment is in reply.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Rob.T

1) There's a country called "America"?

2) It's "you're".

0
0

pedant alert

----

It might surprise some to find out that Canada ( Canadian - it's a clue!) is not in America.

----

Ummm - yes it is, North America - as is the United States of America (the other country in "America"). If you were to say the "Americas" that would include Brazil, Peru and so on.

0
0

Loosing her job and needing medical treatment?

What kind of basket case was she?

Sounds like her husband potentially had a cheap escape thanks to the fuckup.

2
2
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: Loosing her job and needing medical treatment?

People can get very upset when their marriages break down for whatever reason, and the resulting state they get into can lead to other problems such as the loss of their job in a sort of snowball effect. Medical treatment isn't uncommon in such circumstances. I suppose this is either difficult for you to understand, or you can't be arsed because it's less fun.

BTW, 'losing', you silly arse.

12
1
Flame

God that pisses me off

I really hate it when people spell lose as loose.

I don't know why, other spelling mistakes don't wind me up, but that one is just fucking annoying.

3
0
Flame

Medical treatment is probably necessary

Just to get rid of her STD's. She's going to need that money to raise her sprog.

And her marriage didn't just "break down". She was cheating on her (soon to be ex-) hubby.

I have more sympathy for the kids who are going to be messed up by all this.

1
0
Joke

Sorry, can't think of a title

I dunno....sounds like she was the loose one.

0
0
Silver badge

That's

one of my spelling pet hates too. It's right up there with people insisting on putting an 'x' in 'espresso.'

0
0
Paris Hilton

"kids messed up by this"

Ah, so they wouldn't be messed up beforehand, when living with the type of person who thinks "Husband left me because of my cheating? Bingo! I can now make some serious money off the one error that tripped me up, maybe become C-list celeb"? I sincerely doubt that.

0
0

Apologies for the spelling.

I really should have proof-read my post.

As for her being upset -- she should have though of that before screwing someone else behind her husband's back. She's obviously psychologically strong enough to cheat on her husband and hide it from him -- and she obviously thought it would be OK for his mental health too.

Besides, if she was upset about her marriage breaking down then that should have happened the day she let some other guy shag her -- that was the day it broke down.

As I said, her husband is better off without the weak-willed pathetic woman and this has done him a favour in the long run.

0
0
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: Apologies for the spelling.

Have you ever, like, met another human being?

You all talk as if you're infallible. It's hilarious. No, wait, it's absurd.

0
0
Grenade

Grief...

"The incident eventually led to the woman at the centre of the case losing her job and requiring medical attention. She is seeking $600,000"

Requiring medical attention? Because her hubby smacked the living shit out of her once he found out he'd been dipping his wick in someone else's 'sloppy seconds'?

Losing her job? Obviously she was a model, and a couple of black eyes isn't conducive, unless it's a sunglasses-modelling job. Well, the affair only lasted a few weeks. That's OK, then.

Grenade icon, 'cos I'll bet she did.

3
10
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: Grief...

Fucking hell, Andus.

14
0
Thumb Up

Nice one Sarah

Though Im surprised the Moderatrix let that post through.......

Either way got me laughing at your reply.

0
0
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: Nice one Sarah

With threads like this one I let pretty much everything through so you can all see each other's naked nastiness and compare it with your own. I know how much you like that.

If anyone has any further dazzling insight on this grave matter, best blurt it out now because I'm closing this fucker after another 15 comments. If in your haste you neglect the niceties of grammar or don't bother engaging your brain, well, that's just spiffy.

1
1
Thumb Down

Lemme get this straight...

...over half a mil for an affair that lasted 'a few weeks'?

That is one high-class hooker!!

The dirty cheating tart doesn't deserve a penny.

3
0
Thumb Up

Too bad...

I'm really curious to see how this plays out, because the approach to bundling and privacy here is really loose.

My girlfriend had our phone, TV, and internet bundled when she had cable added onto our services. The services are all in my name, and I'm the one billed, but I was not approached or asked for my consent to have the new material bundled on.

The telcos bundle based on address. Technically this is probably a legal liability for them, as it amounts to a few contractual problems, not the least being to ensure that others don't have unconsented access to private information. They also are willing to bundle/rebundle services at the drop of a hat. It's a marketing and pricing strategy for them, and they're quick to want to make the sale.

Will this case be about those legal issues? I highly doubt it.

5
0
FAIL

Too bad continue...

You are right - the bundle practice is a breach of contract and very much more so privacy. What if you live in a rented house upstairs and tenants downstairs all sharing the same postal address, to Rogers you are all at the address they will bundle address! Rogers failed to acknowledge the fact that the names on the accounts are different and that should have stopped the process from starting based on privacy and the privacy laws of Canada.

1
0
Stop

Tenants downstairs?

Those would have a different house number, say 51 and 51A, otherwise all mail would be mixed. Not if you have some illegal tenants, but hey, that's not the telecom's problem.

Your partner living at the same address though probably has also submitted the same fixed line as contact number etc etc. The mixup has historical roots: phone is just a utility like water and gas, but only quite recently with itemized billing privacy issues have come up, and they haven't yet dealt with them. (Because they haven't been sufficiently sued yet, of course.)

0
0

Ok how about jsut a house share

When I started working I couldn't afford to live on my own and knew noone where I was moving to. I got a house share. 4 months later the I found out the livin landlord had not been paying any bills on the house for about 15months (even though the other 3 of us had been paying her money each month we had been there (bills were in her name only). What if our bills had been bundled with hers, we could then be listed as "linked" in any credit record and would probably be liable to pay more of her debt.

0
0
Coat

itemize billing

Itemize billing justifies the usage of the white space on the bill - paper wastage... different house numbers where heck do you live? using the scenario of 51 and 51A in a housing development could also mean two separate houses or lots but for some reason due to may be zoning or the sub dividing of the lot two houses built on the same property.

0
0

Title Reqd

Rogers Wireless Rogers woman who Rogers behind husband back?

I bet she wants to keep his name out of the report because it's Roger and it would just get too damned confusing.

0
0
FAIL

Silly

If the bill went to the hubby then presumably the account was either in his name alone or in joint names. There must have been some link between the internet account and the mobile account otherwise no such connection could have been made by the telco. So, surely there's implicit permission in that to send the bill to the hubby.

And even if not, why should the woman get any money for screwing around? If she'd not been caught out she'd probably have looked at the bill, said "Mmm...I wonder why it was sent to you hun?", and left it at that.

0
0

A little naive

It is not uncommon for companies to send documents to the wrong person - in fact it happens all too frequently. So to suggest there must have been a link is a little naive - it is likely they were bundled simply because they both lived at the same address.

Affair aside (which I don't condone) her personal account statements should not have been bundled with her husband's, period - so yes Rogers are liable in my mind.

Let us look at this from a slightly different angle. Say she had been using the phone to get counselling for domestic/spousal abuse and her husband found out and killed her in a fit of rage - would that not be Roger's liability either?

My point is, what she was doing with this private phone is completely irrelevant - it was registered under her name and therefore should not have been sent to her husband - period.

And just a quick reply to the first comment - learn to read you idiot, the title of the article clearly states "CANADIAN" so your american comment just made you look stupid.

6
0
tas
Alert

@AC, "Silly"

From your first paragraph you seem to not understand the main technical issue in this case and the reason why the article is valuable and not just tabloid material.

Some telco providers bundle billing if they are linked to the same address. Specifically, it seems to be common with cable companies. In other words, for almost all practical purposes the account is in the name of the *address* not the person who opened the contract. So, what almost certainly happened in this case is that regardless of whose name was used for the primary services to that address, it would have been organisationally simple for the telco to add any other services linked to that address, which happened to include the woman's mobile contract and its billing. Whether this was intentional or not would be a very interesting question...

On a related note, Virgin Media do the same type of address bundling for billing. When I last enquired about additional landline telephone line services to our address (mid 2009), I was told that it was impossible for them to send separate bills for the services and it was impossible for them to have separate accounts at the same household. Obviously, I refused to take up the additional services with them (even though they were the cheapest offer) because there's no way I'd either want to manually go through a comprehensive bill and separate out the charges every month and, to be honest, I really really did not want to be financially linked (credit report etc) to another person.

1
0
FAIL

anything to smack 'merkins

Because they so obviously deserve it.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

VM monkey talking utter bollox

I lived in a shared house and we had 2 net lines, one bundeled with tv in different names. I got my name and the other guy got his bills in his name

2
0

Avoid bundled serviced

My dad recently had an experience with bundled services that most people don't ever think about. Because he was in an argument with AT&T over payments concerning cable his phone service was restricted as to whom he could call. He could receive all phone calls without problems, just not talk to me a few miles away. The problem was on their end, and he was told it was his responsibility to prove to them he had the canceled check for the bill. Didn't take him long to get his cable switch from his phone provided. They don't think of you as a person just a billing address. In this case they were looking to save a few cents on mailing so they put together all the bills for the same address.

0
0
FAIL

An apology from Rogers?

What does she want, a public apology from the phone company? She might get that and a few hundred dollars credit on her phone bill.

She breached her marriage contract and now she is looking for someone else to pay her bills.

1
1

As much as I like seeing Rogers bled dry the same way they bleed their customers...

...this is stupid and should be thrown out of court as fast as possible. That cheating wh*re got what she deserved.

1
3
min
FAIL

oh. my. dog.

what a way to get outed.

Rogers deserve a magnum of champers for that; she, on the other hand, deserves a melchizedek of idiot juice for her brilliance.

the man? well, at least he should have been thankful for the wake up call.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Was amused..

until the bit about the account being in her maiden name, but the bill being sent to her (ex) husbands name.

Now that is wrong. Probably not $600k wrong, but wrong nevertheless.

Put another way, they sent confidential details and billing information to someone who WAS NOT THE owner of the confidential details. If the government had done that the RegTards would have gone apeshit.

BTW, I agree with SarahB, a lot of divorces end with medical treatment issues, so you bunch of c**ts should wind your necks in.

4
1

Community property

Once she was married the husband had legal access to any information not protected by Dr./Patient, Lawyer/Client, etc., privileges. Or something like that, IANAL, but I don't believe the telco did anything wrong on any level. I'll be surprised if the courts don't just throw this one out.

I'll bet she is suing the telco because she knows she won't get any alimony from her ex. and also to try and paint herself as a "victim" to garner some sympathy instead of the scorn she deserves.

I've been where the husband is now so I am biased in his favor. The wife may have needed some anti-depressants but the husband has had his life turned upside down and run through a blender. He is now a single parent of two children, the woman he trusted most has betrayed him, he is going to have to explain to the children why he had to leave mommy and he is going to be the one who wakes up in the middle of the night wondering what went wrong.

Unanswered questions;

who requested the bills be combined?

Why did the husband call the number and not just ask his wife about it?

1
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017