Woman sues Rogers for revealing her affair


Praxius
#1
Woman sues Rogers for revealing her affair - CTV News

Quote:

A 37-year-old Toronto woman is suing telecom giant Rogers Communications for $600,000, alleging the company's billing practices revealed her infidelity, leading her husband to leave her.

"I had a brief affair -- it was very short-lived, a few weeks," Gabriella Nagy told CTV News. "I did not need to lose everything. I am at a point that there's no turning back. Everything that I held dear -- especially my job -- is gone."

Nagy filed a statement of claim alleging an invasion of privacy and breach of contract on Roger's part in an Ontario court.

Nagy had a cellphone account with Rogers in 2007, in which a monthly bill was sent to her home address in her maiden name. Her husband, who is not named in the statement of claim, had the family's cable and TV bill under his name.

In June of 2007, he called to add Internet and home phone services and the following month Rogers sent a "global" bill to the home address, including the itemized phone bill for Nagy's cellphone.

The husband saw several long phone calls to a single phone number, and called the number, and a "third party" revealed an affair on the part of Nagy, the woman told the Star.

"The husband used the previously private and confidential information that the defendant unilaterally disclosed to the husband to inquire about the people that the plaintiff was telephoning and the nature of such calls," the statement of claim reads.
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."

Rogers says it cannot be held responsible for the breakup of the marriage or the effects on Nagy's life.

"Rogers is not the cause of these," the statement of defence reads. "The marriage breakup and its effects happened, or alternatively would have happened, regardless of the form in which the plaintiff and her husband received their invoices for Rogers services in July 2007."

Nagy said her husband walked out on her and their two children after the affair came to light.

She says she was so upset about her marriage falling apart that her work performance suffered, leading her to lose her job as an apartment rental agent that paid nearly $100,000 a year.

Awww Diddims.....

Talk about not accepting responsibility for her own actions. As I see it, Rogers didn't do anything wrong and how the hell are they supposed to know she was having an affair and needed to block some phone numbers in her billing to cover her own ***?

Sure they sent in a "Global" bill for everything billed to that address, and being married it would sound logical that there wasn't anything to "Hide".... I've had bills sent the same way that included separate items for the household that anybody titled to the bill could read. The only time this would ever be a problem is in situations like this where someone is cheating.

"I had a brief affair -- it was very short-lived, a few weeks,"

Oh well.... only a few weeks... well gee, that makes it all better. He found out, he walked out on her and the kids, her job suffered and she got fired.... and now she's trying to find someone to blame for her own actions taken.

Hell private investigators snoop on people like her On Purpose which usually leads to a divorce and someone leaving someone..... yet when do you hear of them getting sued for ruining the marriage?

She ruined it all on her own, has nobody else to blame and is trying to play the poor victim by trying to use some lame technicality to compensate her for her own damn stupidity.

What if this never happened, the bill was still in her name and she left the bill on the table or forgot to trash the evidence and he walked by and saw it? The outcome would have been the same and who'd she sue then?

She got what was coming to her.
 
Machjo
#2
I'd read this yesterday. Certainly Rogers should not be held accountable for the fallout of her affair.

Here's how I see it. Let's suppose she had never had an affair, but still wanted to keep it secret just because she's secretive by nature. As a result of this blunder on Roger's part, her husband would have thought nothing of it other than, 'oh, you have a cell phone account with Rogers'.

She might have been angry and distraught as a matter of principle. So fine, since Rogers inappropriately disclosed her billing info for that bill, they would wave any fees that showed up on that bill. And since they'd also essentially disclosed that she had an account with Rogers, she'd therefore be free to walk out of that current contract at any time with no penalty to her while Rogers would be expected to continue to honour the contract until such time as either it expires or she cancels it, whichever comes first. And of course as long as the contract continues, any further bills would have to be sent to the address of her specification.

bingo, fair compensation for having violated her privacy.

As for the consequences of her affair though, rogers has nothing to do with that.
 
DurkaDurka
#3
If the services are not in the same name, they should not be combined into a single bill.

While I agree she needs to take responsibility for her actions, Rogers also seems to be at fault for possible breach of contract
("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" ) and probably violated some privacy regulations. Normally, Rogers or any telcom company for that matter will not divulge any account info to a 3'rd party without verbal or written consent.

 
TenPenny
#4
Rogers certainly isn't to blame for her affair and husband discovering it, but if the husband wasn't listed as an authorized person on the cell account, they had no right to change the bill on his say so, whether they were married or not.

But she's an idiot.
 
EagleSmack
#5
File this under BUSTED

There was a story not so long ago whereas a VERY WEALTHY guy was going through an amicable divorce...infidelity was not an issue. Well it wasn't until she found a receipt for a flower shop and tracked it down through the shop. After finding out the flowers went to a woman he works with her lawyer came back with a revised settlement.

He in turn sued the flower delivery service for $600... the same amount that the revised settlement was for.
 
Andem
#6
I agree she got what she deserved, but the point of the case is that Rogers had no right to reveal personal information or make any actions on the account without prior consent. They are certainly not the first person they've done something like that to.

I called Rogers 3 years ago from Germany, on behalf of someone else to sort some issues out, with a different last name and they freely provided me with account details which they shouldn't have.

I think Rogers should pay for slipping up like they so often do. They hire idiots to work in their call centres and these idiots get perks for clicking a button and combining accounts. It doesn't just stop at accounting either. This organisation is crude in the way they deal with accounts and customers.
 
Machjo
#7
Honestly though, if I were her the last thing I'd want to do is make a scene and get my name in the papers. I'd be smart enough to keep a low profile after that...

But there is a catch-22 here. If I were smart enough for that, I'd also be smart enough not to have the affair in the first place.
 
DurkaDurka
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Honestly though, if I were her the last thing I'd want to do is make a scene and get my name in the papers. I'd be smart enough to keep a low profile after that...

But there is a catch-22 here. If I were smart enough for that, I'd also be smart enough not to have the affair in the first place.

She should have had a "burner" phone. Ie: pay as you go cheapie
 
Machjo
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by AndemView Post

I agree she got what she deserved, but the point of the case is that Rogers had no right to reveal personal information or make any actions on the account without prior consent. They are certainly not the first person they've done something like that to.

I called Rogers 3 years ago from Germany, on behalf of someone else to sort some issues out, with a different last name and they freely provided me with account details which they shouldn't have.

I think Rogers should pay for slipping up like they so often do. They hire idiots to work in their call centres and these idiots get perks for clicking a button and combining accounts. It doesn't just stop at accounting either. This organisation is crude in the way they deal with accounts and customers.

But $600,000? Certainly they owe her for having violated her privacy, but not for having broken up her marriage. that amount of money is clearly intended to compensate for the fallout from the adultery. My guess is the judge will make them pay for the privacy violation but not the fallout form her actions, and that certainly won't amount to $600,000.
 
TenPenny
#10
Even better, if you're going to pull stuff like this, rent a PO Box at one of those rental locations, and have your bills go there.
 
Machjo
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

She should have had a "burner" phone. Ie: pay as you go cheapie

Again, catch-22. Had she been smart enough to think of that, she'd also have been smart enough not to commit adultery in the first place.
 
Machjo
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Even better, if you're going to pull stuff like this, rent a PO Box at one of those rental locations, and have your bills go there.

Or better yet, seek a divorce and open up a massage parlour in some run-down part of town.
 
Machjo
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

File this under BUSTED

There was a story not so long ago whereas a VERY WEALTHY guy was going through an amicable divorce...infidelity was not an issue. Well it wasn't until she found a receipt for a flower shop and tracked it down through the shop. After finding out the flowers went to a woman he works with her lawyer came back with a revised settlement.

He in turn sued the flower delivery service for $600... the same amount that the revised settlement was for.

Did he win?
 
DurkaDurka
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Again, catch-22. Had she been smart enough to think of that, she'd also have been smart enough not to commit adultery in the first place.

Not really a catch 22, more like cover your tracks if you're going to cheat.
 
Avro
#15
I'd like to know what POS lawyer told her she had a case.
 
DurkaDurka
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Or better yet, seek a divorce and open up a massage parlour in some run-down part of town.

Markham is the epicenter of rub'n'tugs, they operate everywhere and anywhere.
 
Machjo
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Not really a catch 22, more like cover your tracks if you're going to cheat.

But if you're stupid enough to cheat, then you're not likely to be smart enough to cover your tracks. After all, if you cheat clearly it's because you're not thinking with the head above your shoulders.
 
Machjo
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

I'd like to know what POS lawyer told her she had a case.

Hey, if she's paying him, what does he care whether she wins or loses.
 
Avro
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Hey, if she's paying him, what does he care whether she wins or loses.

He dosen't care, that's a lawyer for you.
 
DurkaDurka
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

But if you're stupid enough to cheat, then you're not likely to be smart enough to cover your tracks. After all, if you cheat clearly it's because you're not thinking with the head above your shoulders.

What does stupidity have to do with adultery? Are you telling me that one has to be of low intellect to cheat?
 
Machjo
#21
For all their sakes, I hope her husband forgives her and rebuild the marriage.

However, if not, then I hope he sues her *** and takes the kids.
 
Machjo
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

He dosen't care, that's a lawyer for you.

He probably knows already that all she'll get is small compensation for violation of privacy, likely to be a few hundred dollars at most. A far cry from the $600,000 she's fighting for.

Then again, since it is Roger's error, they might have to pay her layer if it's proven that she'd tried to get fair compensation from them directly and they refused.
 
DurkaDurka
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

For all their sakes, I hope her husband forgives her and rebuild the marriage.

However, if not, then I hope he sues her *** and takes the kids.

Sounds like you have been cheated on, Machjo. You seem a little spiteful about the topic.
 
Machjo
#24
But if she's asking 600,000, my guess is she wasn't asking for fair compensation, but a bundle.
 
Machjo
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Sounds like you have been cheated on, Machjo. You seem a little spiteful about the topic.

Once, yes.
 
Machjo
#26
I'd forgiven her, but then she just insisted on keeping our marriage secret. That was the last straw I wasn't going to bend to, and that ended that marriage.
 
Slim Chance
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

If the services are not in the same name, they should not be combined into a single bill.

While I agree she needs to take responsibility for her actions, Rogers also seems to be at fault for possible breach of contract
("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" ) and probably violated some privacy regulations. Normally, Rogers or any telcom company for that matter will not divulge any account info to a 3'rd party without verbal or written consent.

I heard this discussion on talk-radio yesterday. What struck me as Roger's defense is the possibility that they can claim she misrepresented herself via using her maiden name, assuming that she legally took her husband's surname.
 
Machjo
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim ChanceView Post

I heard this discussion on talk-radio yesterday. What struck me as Roger's defense is the possibility that they can claim she misrepresented herself via using her maiden name, assuming that she legally took her husband's surname.

Interesting. Is she legally required to use her legal name though? I'd assume she is. If so, then both sides violated the terms of the contract, in which case they're now even.

If not, then they're still stuck with having violated her privacy at least.
 
EagleSmack
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Did he win?

Not sure.

I remember the lawyer saying...

"It was an amicable divorce and the flower delivery service may have cost him a significant sum of money for releasing the information without his consent."
 
TenPenny
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim ChanceView Post

I heard this discussion on talk-radio yesterday. What struck me as Roger's defense is the possibility that they can claim she misrepresented herself via using her maiden name, assuming that she legally took her husband's surname.

That would depend on what name she normally uses, I suppose. I believe that a woman (or a man) has to decide what name to use after marriage, and stick with it.

I know in NB, the man and the woman can use either his surname, or hers, or a hyphenated version, but you have to stick with one.

If she normally used her married name, and got a cell phone under her maiden name, that could indeed be misrepresentation.
 
no new posts