Toronto Woman Sues Rogers For Exposing Affair

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

"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."

Isn't that the real rub here?Consolidating their bills is one thing, but forget about all the "moral issues", (and who needs a telecommunications companyto have any sort of insight into morality and honesty?), they gave her voicemail password to some stranger.At the very least, they should be paying for that trick.

Yeah, they way I read this the "3rd party" stole her info and taunted the husband. If her business voice mail was; "Hey y'all. This Fourty-by-For. Sorry this ho can't answer the phone but she got my dick in her mouth! " then maybe she does have a legitimate case.

It takes a real group of tough guys to render legal and moral judgment - against an ashamed girl potentially betrayed a corporate monolith - based on a broad outline of the facts.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Some of the posts in this thread are just dumb. Yeah, yeah, she's a cheating bitch that should be stoned to death in front of the village. That's beside the point. She had a contract between herself and Rogers for her own cell phone, in her maiden name. Why in blue hell would Rogers just add it to "the other bill" that gets sent to the same address, without her explicit permission? Trying to save a buck on an extra stamp and envelope?

How would any of you people who live with a roommate (or your parents) like it if Visa just threw both your bills in the same envelope? Or Revenue Canada? Some things are nobody's business except the person that is on the contract. That's her beef, and I totally agree with her.

Anyone here ever broken up with a psycho, or know someone that has, where the ex manages to get all kinds of things changed around because he or she knows personal info? Companies should be held responsible for your personal information. Too bad if it's difficult to do something on another person's behalf. And as far as when I call in to make changes to my service, I welcome the gauntlet of questions they ask to verify my identity. And nobody should be allowed to make changes to my account unless I have previously authorized it. That's what happened here, the husband had the bills bundled, and Rogers did not get permission from the wife. I'm not a litigious person, but I'd be a-ok with a precedent being set here.

Well, the way I read it is that the husband was getting TV, phone and internet from rogers. Rogers has the bundle deals where if you have more items, you get 5% discount for each item. Rogers is actually losing money by bundling the account, so the intention was not just to save a buck on an envelope.

Now, I think it gets fuzzy because I'm wondering what kind of permission Rogers needs to get in order to make this okay. Perhaps a procedural change is needed at Rogers, but there should not be any damages awarded.

Also, she's a cheating whore.

[ResAlien]

Forget her contract or any other BS. She's a cheating whore and deserves all the humiliation she gets. I hope she burns in hell.

[bluejays]

At first, just on the case that Rogers breached privacy, you'd think they'd lose. However, don't most suits like this work on the premise that the accuser has to prove that she tried to mitigate the "damages" through something like councelling? Or did she just go to work, cry in her coffee, go to lunch, come back, cry, rinse and repeat for 30 days? I just don't get it. While I certainly agree that Rogers seems to have breached her right to privacy, it's quite evident she did nothing to help herself. While the US is all about the benjamins, and they'd probably award her some decent money, this isn't the US and I'm not sure lawsuits like this are awarded much in Canada. This lady's lawsuit seems to represent a classic case of the slippery slope fallacy, but not necessarily from Rogers' wrongdoing, but more from this lady's stupidness. Rogers' reputation is on the line, and I wouldn't be surprised if they fight this to the end and smear this lady all they can. I can't imagine she'll be paid more the $50k at best.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

But how does one taunt the husband with only a voicemail password?

oooo, I'll get you now, watch me record a wicked voice greeting that someone will surely hear?

Well, there's that.

"Hi, this is Donna's phone. I screwed her every which way you can think of last week and her husband Steve has left her because he found out. She has a birthmark in the shape of Argentina on the small of her back and she farted in my car. Please leave a message after the tone".

They gave away her password. Would you be okay if your cell provider did the same to you?

[Clarkey]

We need a picture of this skank.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Well, the way I read it is that the husband was getting TV, phone and internet from rogers. Rogers has the bundle deals where if you have more items, you get 5% discount for each item. Rogers is actually losing money by bundling the account, so the intention was not just to save a buck on an envelope.

Now, I think it gets fuzzy because I'm wondering what kind of permission Rogers needs to get in order to make this okay. Perhaps a procedural change is needed at Rogers, but there should not be any damages awarded.

Also, she's a cheating whore.

Yup. The husband was getting tv, internet and phone... And she had a separate account in her own name. At least, that's what I understood. Two separate accounts, two different people. How do the bills get packaged together?

"Whore" though she may be, Rogers needs to speak with it's client before re-packaging her bill. I read that it was put in the same envelope as the husbands, with both names on it. You can't do that without checking with your client first, I don't care what she was doing behind his back.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Yup. The husband was getting tv, internet and phone... And she had a separate account in her own name. At least, that's what I understood. Two separate accounts, two different people. How do the bills get packaged together?

"Whore" though she may be, Rogers needs to speak with it's client before re-packaging her bill. I read that it was put in the same envelope as the husbands, with both names on it. You can't do that without checking with your client first, I don't care what she was doing behind his back.

Still... if she had a cell phone with the same carrier with the bills being sent to her house she was going to get caught sooner or later. Further, she's a whore and deserved to get caught. Seriously... if she's planning her whoring out this much that she has a separate cell phone under a phoney name, just get a pre-paid phone.

I guess that's another question for the lawyer types: if she entered into a contract with the cell phone contract under a different name than her real name, does that change anything? Make the contract less enforceable? Fraud? I want them to find a way to add more salt in her wounds.

[troutman]

I hope the $10,000.00 she is going to get is worth it. Her name is mud now.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Still... if she had a cell phone with the same carrier with the bills being sent to her house she was going to get caught sooner or later. Further, she's a whore and deserved to get caught. Seriously... if she's planning her whoring out this much that she has a separate cell phone under a phoney name, just get a pre-paid phone.

I guess that's another question for the lawyer types: if she entered into a contract with the cell phone contract under a different name than her real name, does that change anything? Make the contract less enforceable? Fraud? I want them to find a way to add more salt in her wounds.

1. I still don't see how her cheating cancels out a blatant breach of a contract. Lol. "She's a whore and deserves to get caught". Ok, how about this: you call in sick for work on a Friday, and then your boss coerces Rogers into sending him your phone bill and figures out that you actually screwed off to Vegas for the weekend, and then fires you. Lemme guess... You're a liar and deserve to get caught, right?

2. A maiden name isn't a phoney name. Do you know when she signed the contract? I don't. Do you know if she even changed her name? How are you jumping to this conclusion? You're bringing fraud into the conversation? Easy, man.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Still... if she had a cell phone with the same carrier with the bills being sent to her house she was going to get caught sooner or later. Further, she's a whore and deserved to get caught. Seriously... if she's planning her whoring out this much that she has a separate cell phone under a phoney name, just get a pre-paid phone.

I guess that's another question for the lawyer types: if she entered into a contract with the cell phone contract under a different name than her real name, does that change anything? Make the contract less enforceable? Fraud? I want them to find a way to add more salt in her wounds.

Geez, was this your wife or something? Talk about vindictive.

It doesn't matter if she did something wrong, the phone company gave her password to some clown who just phoned 'em up and asked for it. Is that okay, because she cheated on her husband?

In other news, last month my bank "accidentally" doubled my service charges. It's a bitch, but I can't really complain. I did, after all, forget to send my grandma a birthday card.

[EVERLAST]

oh, I am so sorry ,,,,why didnt someone come along and make life nice for you you leg spreading ...............................hum hum hum koooombaya

[Huntingwhale]

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by 4X4

2. A maiden name isn't a phoney name. Do you know when she signed the contract? I don't. Do you know if she even changed her name? How are you jumping to this conclusion? You're bringing fraud into the conversation? Easy, man.

I guess it's a fair point that we don't know when she entered the contract. I'd assume that she changed her name because of both the article and statement referring to her maiden name.

A married name is the family name adopted by a person upon marriage, and in speaking of the many cultures where the practice is traditional for women, the maiden name is the family name that the married name replaces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiden_name


Bringing fraud into it for the lulz and I really don't like lawsuits like this. Going after them for privacy stuff... fine. Filing a large lawsuit because she had a sad and decided to stop doing her job? *facepalm*
I know, I know, it's not actually going to happen. But it would satisfy my shadenfreude fantasy.

[amorak]

I am wondering - Does the fact they are married carry any weight, legally?

IE, when I call my insurance company, cable, ROGERS, for my wife's cell - they just do what I tell them, even though we're just common law married and she has her maiden name still... So I assumed marriage gave you some right to do stuff on each others behalf, but maybe that's just an ASSumption?


Also, I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but this fine lady is a HUGE WHORE.

[fredr123]

The National Post does a Q & A with Gabriella Nagy, the woman who filed the lawsuit: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3039965

[kyuusei]

Should have gone with electronic billing.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by fredr123

The National Post does a Q & A with Gabriella Nagy, the woman who filed the lawsuit: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3039965

This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by amorak

I am wondering - Does the fact they are married carry any weight, legally?

IE, when I call my insurance company, cable, ROGERS, for my wife's cell - they just do what I tell them, even though we're just common law married and she has her maiden name still... So I assumed marriage gave you some right to do stuff on each others behalf, but maybe that's just an ASSumption?

Unless you consent or sign a joint contract it's unlikely your private information can legally be released to anyone else, regardless of marital status. The fact that companies allow you to do things on an account is one thing, there's likely no harm that can't be quickly rectified, although I still don't know why a major corporation would expose themselves to potential liability. Sending bills to other people and giving out passwords takes it to the next level. I'm not all that versed in this area, but I don't see any way that Rogers isn't liable here, although the damages are another story.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Yup. The husband was getting tv, internet and phone... And she had a separate account in her own name. At least, that's what I understood. Two separate accounts, two different people. How do the bills get packaged together?

Because they're married and packaging them together saves them an additional 5% on each item? It's not just the bills being packaged together to save an envelope, it's all of the accounts being bundled. They weren't sending them to a different person, you could argue they're sending it to the same household.

It just seems like such a no brainer to me in terms of common sense. I mean, if you're married, and you're offered to save something like $20 a month just by bundling the cell phone with all this new stuff, it's an easy decision. However, I do believe you're correct that lawfully, Rogers may have done something wrong by assuming that the husband's authorization to bundle is the same as the wife's. This is the ONLY thing that Rogers did wrong though.

One possible scenario is the husband asked the wife whether or not she wanted to bundle everything to save that extra money. She didn't think about the consequences and agreed, but obviously there isn't any sort of paper trail for this. Then Rogers assumed that this scenario was done, and performed the operation anyways. Maybe they need to change their procedure to require notarized forms from all parties presented in person to make a simple account change.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It doesn't matter if she did something wrong, the phone company gave her password to some clown who just phoned 'em up and asked for it.

Where does it say that someone called up Rogers and said "I want this person's voicemail password...kk thx" It seems to me that the person went through a password recovery process, and due to knowing the personal information, they were able to obtain it. If Rogers followed protocol for the password recovery, then there is nothing they can do about it other than help the wife change the password and change recovery questions.

Just as kind of an aside, I have called Bell to deal with cable TV and internet that is under my GF's name. They did account changes and sent techs out under my request, even though I don't own the account or pay for it. I don't think this is unreasonable at all.