Woman sues cell phone company, blaming their invoice for breaking up her marriage

[JBoy]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/woman-sues-rogers-over-cellphone-bill-says-it-ruined-her-marriage/article1572143/

A Toronto mother who says her marriage fell apart because her Rogers cellphone bill exposed her extramarital affair is suing Canada's largest cellphone provider.

In documents filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ms. Nagy seeks $600,000 for alleged invasion of privacy and breach of contract.

Ms. Nagy's bill was being sent in her name until her husband signed up for Rogers Internet and home phone. Those services, along with Ms. Nagy's cellphone, were bundled into one bill, and that new invoice was addressed to her husband, the suit alleges.

The invoice mailed to her then-husband contained details of her outgoing cellphone calls, the suit, filed in January, 2009, says. Ms. Nagy's husband figured out from the phone bill that she was having an affair. He left her and the children in August, 2007.

---------

Good luck with that lawsuit, cheater.

[edbermac]

1. By that logic, Tiger Woods should sue his carrier for $600 million.

:7

[TheOther95Percent]

2. Seriously?

This sounds like something out of The Onion.

[Lance_Boyle]

3. How on Earth did this ever even make it to a Judge???

Sadly, the cheater will probably win. If it was in the US, she'd probably get alimony from the man she cheated on, too.

[seabeyond]

4. action creates reaction. nt

[soleft]

5. Phone bill ended my marriage

I didn't sue anyone.

[slackmaster]

6. What an idiot

I hope the courts throw it out with prejudice.

[NeedleCast]

7. Being stupid doesn't give you a right to sue

Judge NeedleCast says: "Be less dumb. Case dismissed."

[ljm2002]

8. While I find her actions contemptible...

...it is also interesting that when her husband signed up, the bill that had been sent in her name was suddenly changed and all was sent in his name.

Corporations have been doing this forever. I had issues like that when I was married -- none of them having to do with extramarital affairs, however! In fact when I was a member of the late, lamented Berkeley Co-op, I joined before I was married. When I changed from my maiden name to my married name and gave my husband's name, the account was put in his name. When I added him on my bank account, the account was put in his name.

I guess the core question is this: if the husband is the one who had the phone service to begin with, and then if she had signed on, would the bills suddenly have been all addressed to her? If not, then it appears the company has a policy that gives preferential treatment to men/husbands, assuming that they are the head of the family while relegating wives to secondary status.

It isn't necessarily some sinister plot, I get that. It is probably done just for convenience. "Oh, this is the same household. We'll just send one bill, to one person. Which one? Easiest is to pick the male, as that is the husband and most people will be fine with that."

Now she may be reprehensible for bringing suit under the circumstances. But there is an issue there IMO, however minor.

For the record, though, I hope she loses, just because. This is not a principled position on my part.

[Lance_Boyle]

9. He signed up for the bundle, so the phone service was rolled into his bundle.

I don't think it's anything more nefarious than that on the part of the service provider.

[Bunny]

10. Yes, but her account, which she held first and was in her maiden name,

was rolled into her husband's account without her knowledge or consent. Her behavior notwithstanding, the breach of privacy involved here is startling.

[SocialistLez]

11. I agree.

I may not agree with her actions but they should have mailed two separate bills.

My mom and I have two different last names but we live at the same address.
Even if we have the same cell phone carrier, our bills should be sent separately.

[Lance_Boyle]

14. they BUNDLE the services precisely to AVOID sending separate bills

If you and your mom signed up for a BUNDLE from your provider to cover both accounts, or otherwise joined your accounts into one, you'd get one bill.

[JBoy]

12. Based on the article, I don't think you can conclude it was without her consent.

They may very well have signed up on-line for the bundle, and her husband entered the required info to switch the billing address.

[Bunny]

15. The article that I read yesterday contains that allegation:

The statement alleges Rogers "unilaterally terminated its cellular contract with the plaintiff that had been in her maiden name and included it in the husband's account that was under his surname.

"The plaintiff's maiden name and the husband's surname were different. Such unilateral action by the defendant was done without the knowledge, information, belief, acquiescence or approval of the plaintiff."

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100517/affair-sues-rogers-100517/20100517/?hub=TorontoNewHome

[petronius]

20. I think she has a case too. Not for the marriage breakup, but for the breach of contract

and perhaps violation of privacy (assuming that there is a legal expectation of privacy in a commercial interaction like this). If the statement is true, then it's no different than the provider bundling together roommates, or landlord/tenant, or any other house-sharing arrangement...

[Barack_America]

13. Sounds to me like it was the affair that broke up the marriage.

Time for the responsible party to take responsibility for her actions.

[appal_jack]

17. +1

In fact, make that +eleventybillion and a half.

-app

[Kalyke]

16. So the phone company held a gun to her head and forced her

to jump in bed with a man other than her husband?

God, I hate cheaters. They're liars who will not take responsibility for their own actions.

[no limit]

18. I think she has a point. They had no right to start sending her invoices to her husband

if in fact she didn't consent first, from the article it doesn't seem like she did.

[pnorman]

19. Isn't there a comon law legal principle, where the plaintiff

has to have something referred to as "Clean Hands"?