Slashdot Mirror


Canadians File Class Actions Over Incoming SMS Fees

dontmakemethink writes "CTV reports that over the last couple of weeks class-action lawsuits have been filed against two major Canadian cellular service providers, Bell and Telus, for imposing fees on incoming text messages. While there has been very vocal opposition to the introduction of the fees, those who cannot change providers due to binding contracts feel the situation is actionable in court. Some of those not bound by contract, such as myself, have given their service provider notice that they will charge the provider for having to contact them to have charges reversed for unsolicited texts. Because service providers are aware of the volume of unsolicited texts, we feel they are liable for the inconvenience to their clients for preventing spam charges, and more importantly under no circumstances should service providers profit from spam. We also feel that requiring us to buy text bundles to avoid the inconvenience of reversing spam charges constitutes extortion. They can charge me for texts when they stop the spam."

12 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. Rather unjustifiable reactions? by William+Ager · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can understand how this might be a breach of contract issue for customers with binding contracts, and I would certainly expect many customers, even without binding contracts, to cancel their service over this. However, I really can't see how a customer can consider themselves justified in arbitrarily billing a company for their time just because the company makes changes that they dislike, no matter how horrible those changes may be.

    1. Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions? by Whuffo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a company can arbitrarily bill their customers for incoming messages then what's wrong with the customers billing the company for having to deal with those unwanted messages? Show me in the contract where it says that customers will be required to pay for SMS spam...

    2. Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions? by Doc+Daneeka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A major problem occurs when any industry initiates a round of the Prisoner's Dilemma. One company institutes a policy change and their competitors follow them in the chase towards decreasing the bottom line and increasing profits. How are costumers supposed to vote with their feet, money, etc. when all/most of the industry have the policy or are quickly working towards embracing it?

    3. Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions? by William+Ager · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If the matter is breach of contract, then it should be dealt with accordingly. There are mechanisms in society to deal with these sorts of issues, and they don't involve billing people without legal justification.

    4. Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions? by polar+red · · Score: 5, Insightful

      this is why self-regulation does not work!!

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    5. Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your responses suggest this is yet another case of the Land Of The Fee making some people more equal than others.

      When issuing a complaint to a firm in the UK, giving them a price list and then billing them for each letter you send (time to write, cost of postage) is well-known technique. If it comes to taking the firm to (usually) small claims court, these amounts may then be awarded as part of your win. And, contrary to all the "oh but they'll never pay" negativity, once you've won your case, if they don't cough up, the court gives permission to send bailiffs round and adds the cost of debt collection and wasting the court's time to the amount they owe. What often happens, if you're claiming a small amount and it's a big firm, is that they don't even turn up and you win by default - if the big guys refuse to swallow their pride and pay up immediately, it's instant tabloid press fodder.

      So anyway, it's all part of increasing the risk for the firm if they fight you. It increases the likelihood that they acquiesce, content with the 95% who bend over and take it. Surely Canada, more recently severed from the motherland, gives its subjects similar recourse?

  2. Contracts? by p0tat03 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't contracts breakable without termination charges if the service provider changes the contract? There's a time limit on this, but it's fairly generous. I know people who got out of their Bell/Telus contracts recently precisely BECAUSE of the SMS fee.

    Now, the fact that all the wireless providers in Canada are dirty crooks is another story altogether. Quitting your contract won't help much, you'll just get gouged somewhere else.

    I think Canadian telecom (and to a lesser extent in the US) is proof solid that a laissez-faire approach to regulation and the institution of "free market" principles in an industry where the government GUARANTEES monopoly (via last mile, etc.) simply doesn't work.

    Jim Prentice is a corporate crony who should be kicked out of office, preferably thrown in jail for so blatantly selling out the Canadian people's interests. His broken-record touting of "free market will be best" on the telecom issue is laughably absurd for anyone who's had to pay a phone bill in the last 10 years. What a change the Conservative government has brought us. Now instead of the Liberals selling out the Canadian people little bits at a time under the table, the Conservatives are having a firesale blowout with no regard for public opinion.

    1. Re:Contracts? by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Such a clause in a contract is natually invalid. You can not agree to unspecified or future terms, in a contract you only agree to specified a terms, and specifying unspecified terms is not magic loophole any court accepts.

  3. Re:What a rip by ChoboMog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm glad this sort of shit doesn't happen in Australia, only the sender of an SMS/phonecall gets charged here

    All the more reason to be concerned...The fact that we were in your situation just a month ago shows how quickly you could end up in ours.

  4. Re:The way around this by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In my experience the best way is just to cross out the bits you don't like, photocopy it before sending it off and send it.

    I have only once had an "I'm sorry we cannot accept your business" response. When the mobile phone provider Orange set me a change in terms and conditions which said that accepting them would tie me in for another 12 months I crossed this out (I had already had a 12 month minimum term on sign up) and enclosed a note saying that I thought a further lock-in was unreasonable. They actually responded saying they accepted my contract on these terms!

  5. Re:What a rip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's the same here. I work in a call centre for one of the main UK mobile phone networks (thus AC), and this is one of the biggest complaints I get. People call up asking why their credit is disappearing (I'm on the Pay As You Go department), and I explain that they've been receiving these texts which have been taking £1.50 a time.

    It's not the fact that someone can be charged £1.50 for an individual message, it's the fact that these companies can send out many messages at the same time and bill you individually for each message. I once spoke to a gentleman who had lost a total of £18 from 12 messages that he received at once. Thankfully he took the news well.

    In Europe, no provider can charge to receive text messages. Well, in theory they could, but would probably have a mass exodus of customers since the very idea of being charged to receive texts is a ludicrous one. Unfortunately though, this leads to the above situation where people don't realise that they're being billed £1.50 a time to basically receive crap to their phone.

    In short, Jamster, Red Circle, Zamano , et al= Biggest pain in the arse for the UK mobile phone industry.

  6. Re:eat my shorts slashdot !! by pnewhook · · Score: 5, Funny

    If it had been in England, the police would have shot some Brazilian guy who was nothing at all to do with it.

    And Bush would have said "Oh my God! A brazillion people were killed on a bus! How many is that anyway?

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.