It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Toronto woman sues Rogers (Telephone Company) after her affair is exposed

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Toronto woman sues Rogers (Telephone Company) after her affair is exposed


www.thestar.com

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
What? She probably shouldn't have had the affair because that seems to be what ruined her life.


However, the fact that Rogers gave information away to the "third party" aka the married man she was fooling around with is a huge allegation. Rogers seems to screw up consistently when it comes to customer service so I don't doubt all of the allegations against them. But are they worth $600 000 after "ruining her life?"

www.thestar.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Portugoal


What? She probably shouldn't have had the affair because that seems to be what ruined her life.


However, the fact that Rogers gave information away to the "third party" aka the married man she was fooling around with is a huge allegation. Rogers seems to screw up consistently when it comes to customer service so I don't doubt all of the allegations against them. But are they worth $600 000 after "ruining her life?"

www.thestar.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Canadian Privacy laws are ridiculously strict.

I own a call center where we do extended warranty for Bell Mobility phones, let me give you an example of the kind of crap my agents deal with.

" Thank you for calling, how can I help?"

" I have a cell phone needed to get replace?"

" Ok, I see here that your name isn't on the account, do you know so and so? We need his authorization to continue".

"He's 8."

You see the problem here lol?

In any case, I think that she must have a case and if they did provide information to a third party then they are liable for damages...

~Keeper



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I find the article a little confusing. She had the bill sent to her home under her maiden name? Wouldn't of her husband have noticed that?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
This phone company is NOT responsible for her lying and cheating on her husband. She is only pissed because she got caught. I bet she would have kept it going on longer had he not found out. She knows she is screwed and needs money now. Pathetic! I hope they don't have to pay her a dime. I am sorry but when someone is DECEIVING another, like she did, I believe one should be allowed to get records like this. I have no respect for people who cheat on their spouses like this and then expect to get money for damages.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


I agree...it is pathetic.
All the guy had to do is look at her phone records that come in print every month.
She also shouldn't be blaming others for what she did.




posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


This is an issue that is being done as a test run for NWO in Canada, here is a classic case, completely unusual and in all the news one of a kind. This pits privacy against something considered controversial.

What you just said is what they're banking on.

Privacy is an unalterable right, and cannot be forfetted. Her immorality is irrelevant to the law.

Period.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Here is another example of people suing over the most ridiculous things. If she didn't want to get caught then she never should've cheated in the first place. Perhaps next time she will think of the consequences first.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by Serenedaisy]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99


Privacy is an unalterable right, and cannot be forfetted. Her immorality is irrelevant to the law.

Period.


Ya, and the kicker for me is, that while she is upset about her husband finding out, now the whole world knows about it.

Talk about self inflicted humiliation!



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serenedaisy
Here is another exaple of people suing over the most ridiculous things. If she didn't want to get caught then she never should've cheated in the first place. Perhaps next time she will think of the conquences first.


It's not about her cheating.

This is about a private company breaking the law. Which they did.

In Canada is it illegal to provide ANY information to people who are NOT the primary account holders of any sort of service.

Rogers broke the law by providing that information to a third party.


Privacy is an unalterable right, and cannot be forfetted. Her immorality is irrelevant to the law.


This is the correct answer on all fronts..

~Keeper



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Enough people keep their maiden name so I'm not sure that would've alarmed the husband.

When I read the article in the paper today, all I was thinking about was how she's only pissed that she got caught and lost her $100k a year job. But while she did do wrong, I would not be suprised if Rogers did something as stupid as give out someone elses information in which case she does deserve some money.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


Yeah, she isn't protecting her reputation, but will be calling for some very rude comments, however, I think this is a NWO setup.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

In Canada is it illegal to provide ANY information to people who are NOT the primary account holders of any sort of service.


I have a question about this though, suppose the ex-boyfriend had another woman call and get the password on the account, saying she was the owner of it, is the company still liable?

It seems to me this fellow got the password with no trouble at all.

Do they ask security questions to verify the account?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


In my experience, the only thing Rogers has ever asked me when dealing with, for example my mother's account, after you give the phone number, is her name and sometimes the postal code. Pretty easy really. They ask you to give the number, and if the person talking (a male) can't be the primary account holder (a female) they usually only ask for the persons name.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by Portugoal]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Portugoal
 


So, really it is easy to get the information without even having to try very hard. I wonder if this company has had issues before this with giving out personal information.

I think they need to change their policies a little bit.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Portugoal
 


Its laughable to say the least, but the company will be fine. The guy was her husband and thus is not a third person party, but directly linked with one another. However, as this is a Canadian case and not accustom to their laws, will have to hang my head in shame if the company has to pay a sent to this lady and be deeply disappointed in my neighbors(canada) actions towards the right thing to do...



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

In Canada is it illegal to provide ANY information to people who are NOT the primary account holders of any sort of service.


I have a question about this though, suppose the ex-boyfriend had another woman call and get the password on the account, saying she was the owner of it, is the company still liable?

It seems to me this fellow got the password with no trouble at all.

Do they ask security questions to verify the account?


Depends.

They would ask security questions to confirm that it is that person, usually a unique pin or last 3 digits of social, date of birth that sort of thing.

They would only be liable in that situation is she could prove that it was not her who called.

~Keeper



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

In Canada is it illegal to provide ANY information to people who are NOT the primary account holders of any sort of service.


I have a question about this though, suppose the ex-boyfriend had another woman call and get the password on the account, saying she was the owner of it, is the company still liable?

It seems to me this fellow got the password with no trouble at all.

Do they ask security questions to verify the account?


Depends.

They would ask security questions to confirm that it is that person, usually a unique pin or last 3 digits of social, date of birth that sort of thing.

They would only be liable in that situation is she could prove that it was not her who called.

~Keeper



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by agentofchaos
reply to post by Portugoal
 


Its laughable to say the least, but the company will be fine. The guy was her husband and thus is not a third person party, but directly linked with one another. However, as this is a Canadian case and not accustom to their laws, will have to hang my head in shame if the company has to pay a sent to this lady and be deeply disappointed in my neighbors(canada) actions towards the right thing to do...


It is third party, cause it's her name on the account.

Third party is anybody who is NOT listed as a primary owner of an account.

That fact that they were married is irrelevant.

~Keeper



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I promise you that I've never had to give a social insurance number or pin when calling about someone elses account when dealing with Rogers.

And I think the third-party the article is talking about is the "other man" who used the information to taunt both the woman and he ex-husband.




After she terminated her relationship with the “third party” in August 2007, the jilted lover, himself a married father of three, called Rogers and obtained her secret password to her voicemail and used it to access it to harass her and taunt the husband, the statement of claim alleges.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join