Woman sues phone company after husband discovers affair

[Scooter]

I am of two minds about this story. A woman had a mobile phone account with Rogers Communications, a phone/cable/internet provider, in her maiden name. Her husband had a separate account with Rogers for cable TV services. When her husband added internet and phone service to the account, Rogers also amalgamated the wife's mobile account with all the other services onto one bill. By reviewing his wife's phone usage, the husband was able to discover that she had been having an affair (which was apparently already over by the time the bill came). The woman is suing Rogers because her husband left her and her resultant emotional state caused her to lose her job.

On the one hand, I am not sympathetic to anyone seeking compensation because their bad behaviour has been discovered. On the other hand, Rogers had absolutely no business giving the husband access to his wife's account information; they clearly breached her privacy. What if she hadn't been a philandering spouse? What if she was a battered wife, and through her phone records her husband had discovered that she was planning to leave him? What if he injured or killed her as a result? In that case I would have no problem awarding substantial damages against Rogers.

If I were judging this case, I would hold the woman 75% responsible, because her own actions were at the root of her predicament. But I would hold Rogers 25% responsible, because they did owe their customer a duty to maintain her privacy, which they breached.

What do others think? Is this woman the sole author of her own misfortune, or does Rogers share the blame?

[Crackpot]

I'm not sure they'd be even that much responsible.

There's alot in that story that somehow doesn't ring true.

It seems to me THat the husband was already paying the bill or that it was being left out in the open. How else could he have got the account number in order to change billing?

At the very worst of it could be shown that Rogers did this erroneously any fine or damages paid should be considered independently of her resultant emotional state.

Oddly enough in light of "Identity theft" ramifications I wouldn't consider larger damages completely out of line.

[Gob]

Interesting.

Did the husband combine their bills as a "cost saving" method?

I have a nasty habit of doing such things, though I would always inform Hen first.

Maybe he thought it was no big deal and just went a head and did it.

Edited to add, you have to admire her balls for trying to sue.

[Aard Vark]

I was just going to post the same thing God.

I know Optus made the same offer when I changed address to the farm and my partner changed her's at the same time. Optus said we would save on the accounts if joined.

I reccon husband just said "do it save a quid"

If wife was playing the field then she shouldn't have a leg to stand on. I bet if it was the husband he wouldn't get a look in for a case to sue

[Crackpot]

As I said I figure at the very least she's been leaving bills around for him to find in order for him to have got account to join.

[Jarlaxle]

She is too stupid to be permitted to breed.

She forgot rule one: NO PAPER TRAILS! A prepaid mobile with no way to trace who owns it is $25 at Wal-Mart!

[Sue U]

The woman is suing Rogers because her husband left her and her resultant emotional state caused her to lose her job.

Well, that's not quite accurate, and a little closer examination may help focus the issues: The first issue is the conduct of the phone/cable company; the second issue is what damages, if any, may have been caused by that conduct.

As to question 1: The woman is suing because her privacy was violated and personal information disclosed without her authorization or consent. Did the company do something wrong? Did she have a right to expect that her phone records would be kept confidential? Did the company have an obligation to protect that information from disclosure?

As to question 2: If the company violated its duty to the woman, did that violation cause her any loss? If so, what portion of her loss is attributable to the company and what portion to other causes (including any fault of her own)?

I do think people have a reasonable expectation that their phone records, credit card bills, bank account records and similar information are not subject to disclosure without some specific authorization. It is simply not the company's place to disclose who a customer has been talking to, how often, how long, etc. -- even (or perhaps especially?) to a spouse -- both for practical reasons such as those Scooter noted and for more abstract reasons of privacy rights and personal control of intimacy.

The cause of the losses in this case is a much tougher question. On the one hand, it is clear that the unauthorized disclosure damaged her marriage. On the other hand, I think reasonable people would conclude that she had also damaged her marriage relationship herself -- or at least put in place the factors likely to result in that damage. You can't put a boulder on a precipice and then claim to be entirely surprised when it crashes down onto your house below. Still, the phone company did give it a good push, and perhaps she would have quielty put this affair behind her and gotten on with life with her husband. I think the claim for job loss as a result of emotional distress over the incident is a stretch.

I do think both the woman and the phone/cable company are at fault, but I wouldn't want to assess percentages without knowing more about how each side views causation and foreseeability of of the losses. Although I have a deep interest in seeing and understanding how civil litigation plays out, this is not a case I would be happy to prosecute, and even less so one on which I'd like to serve as a juror.

[Rick]

Many utilities offer single statement billing when there is a common address...

[loCAtek]

Wow, she really picked a jerk to fool around with too!

[Sue U]

Wow, she really picked a jerk to fool around with too!

Yeah, well, there's certainly no shortage of bad decisions in this story.

[Scooter]

The woman is suing Rogers because her husband left her and her resultant emotional state caused her to lose her job.

Well, that's not quite accurate, and a little closer examination may help focus the issues: The first issue is the conduct of the phone/cable company; the second issue is what damages, if any, may have been caused by that conduct.

Yes, sorry, I took some liberties with my shorthand. She is suing because she claims that the disclosure by Rogers was both a breach of their duty to her and the cause of the loss which she suffered.

I wouldn't want to assess percentages without knowing more about how each side views causation and foreseeability of of the losses.

I'm certainly not suggesting any degree of accuracy in the numbers I threw out. It was my way of saying that I think the woman bears a substantial majority of the blame for her own losses., but that Rogers did play a role in disclosing confidential information without which the affair, already ended, might never have been discovered by other means.

Interesting.

Did the husband combine their bills as a "cost saving" method?

Probably. Rogers "bundles" all of a customer's services together in order to lock them in. In exchange for committing to a two year term, customers get a discount of 5% for 2 services, 10% for 3 and 15% for 4.

As I said I figure at the very least she's been leaving bills around for him to find in order for him to have got account to join.

All accounts attached to an address are pulled up when any one of them is queried. It happened to me when I went through the same process with Rogers. My original account was for internet and cable TV. Later on I got a mobile phone service, which Rogers got into by buying out Cantel. When Rogers bought out Sprint Canada a new account was created for my landline. Eventually they were all merged into one bill, but until they were, when I called about one service and they pulled up my account, all the others would come up as well.

Many utilities offer single statement billing when there is a common address...

The difference here is that there were different account holders, and Rogers acted on the say so of only one of them. I am actually surprised, because I recently witnessed quite the opposite happen with a couple who are friends of mine. One of them was out of the country for several weeks, and forgot to pay his mobile phone bill before he left. Rogers called their land line and left an automated message to "please call us immediately about your Rogers account". His partner tried calling to pay it with his credit card, and they wouldn't give him the time of day. The guy had to get up in the middle of the night to call from New Zealand (being put on hold for 20 minutes, of course, at international roaming rates). When they refuse to even accept payment from someone other than the accountholder, that tells me they probably aren't supposed to transfer services to another customer's bill without the consent of both.

Wow, she really picked a jerk to fool around with too!

Often a given in someone who chooses to take up with a married person. Even so, when confronted directly about the affair, to deny it only compounds the deception. He could have said, "you really should be asking your wife about this," but that's tantamount to an admission anyway...

[Crackpot]

The difference here is that there were different account holders, and Rogers acted on the say so of only one of them. I am actually surprised, because I recently witnessed quite the opposite happen with a couple who are friends of mine. One of them was out of the country for several weeks, and forgot to pay his mobile phone bill before he left. Rogers called their land line and left an automated message to "please call us immediately about your Rogers account". His partner tried calling to pay it with his credit card, and they wouldn't give him the time of day. The guy had to get up in the middle of the night to call from New Zealand (being put on hold for 20 minutes, of course, at international roaming rates). When they refuse to even accept payment from someone other than the accountholder, that tells me they probably aren't supposed to transfer services to another customer's bill without the consent of both.

It's exactly that type of thing that makes me think that the bills weren't combined without some sort of authorization. (even if that was just an account number)

[Sue U]

It's exactly that type of thing that makes me think that the bills weren't combined without some sort of authorization. (even if that was just an account number)

Or combined in violation of company policy? Or perhaps company policy is just wildly inconsistent as between marketing and billing departments?

[Crackpot]

Could be but I've never been party to such an occasion.

What strikes me about this story is the plaintiffs seemingly complete inability to accept any type of responsibility for her actions.

[Big RR]

What strikes me about this story is the plaintiffs seemingly complete inability to accept any type of responsibility for her actions.

but that's not the point, is it? She suing the company for its actions and the consequences that flowed from them. If instead of a phone company, the woman had gone to a clergyman or a psychiatrist and dscussed her affair and the professional revealed it to her husband, would your response be the same? Certainly her behavior goes toward the magnitude of damges (if any) sh can collect, but her actions have absolutely nothing to do with the alleged breach of the phone companies duty to her.

[Crackpot]

Actually it is the point. It seems to me that she's inventing a story to deflect the blame for the failure of her marriage.

What I'm saying is if it comes down to an issue of he said/she said she doesn't have much credibility.

[Big RR]

OK, but if you really believe she's inventing this story, then I would think she'd have a lot more problems than not owning up to her responsibility.

[Crackpot]

Not out of whole cloth, no. But, it's obvious she has a tenuous grip on morality if not reality.

[Rick]

Their privacy policy

Terms and conditions