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."

Rather unjustifiable reactions?

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.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

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...

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

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.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

Is slashdot turning into digg? Whether or not you agree with the parent, he/she isn't a troll..

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

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.

explain to me how it's not justified? they're billing people for spam they RECEIVE, using the assanine american "per-message" system.

People being held liable for unsollicited traffic they cannot control is criminally absurd, and if their regulatory bodies refuse to crush it in the womb, then I say billing phone companies for their time is an excellent proactive demonstration of, and against, that absurdity.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

Also, isn't there an anti-trust issue here? It seems to me that there was collusion between Bell and Telus, who both decided to charge exactly the same amount for incoming text messages, at around the same time. Are Bell and Telus the same company?

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

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 [telegraph.co.uk] - 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?

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

They aren't arbitrarily billing the company for their time because the company makes changes they dislike.

They are billing the company for the time they spend getting their money back when the company tries to charge them for texts the company forwards to them without their permission or want.

It's basically like me hitting you with a brick, then saying give me a dollar because you got hit with a brick

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

Dealing with the matter in the courts, or through cancelling the service, would make far more sense.

Dealing through the courts: No, that would not make sense. Lawyers cost money. The idea is to not spend more money. Being charged for received messages (plus a 'spam tax') is not just unpleasant. It costs money.

And canceling the service (wrt the cases in question) would often mean canceling all cellphone service. In many parts of Canada, there is only one available telecom and no alternatives. The telecom industry here is made of just a few lethargic behemoths, and there's only a semblance of competition in the higher population density regions. No disrespect intended, but do you understand why people are feeling frustrated here?

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

You're ignoring his main point, that they are under no obligation to pay when they receive this 'bill.' So either way you go, it'll end up in court eventually. As it should.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

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?

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

Actually, that is how the Prisoner's Dilemma works.

There are basically two versions: one in which it only happens once, and the iterated dilemma, in which the prisoners are going to have to deal with dilemma over and over again.

In the iterated version, altruistic strategies tend to work much better. That is, it will tend to your benefit NOT to screw over the other guy. Assuming that all prisoners act rationally, there will usually be relatively few confessions, though this only works if the exact number of iterations is unknown to the prisoners.

The iterated version much more closely resembles telecom competition. The companies are going to have to "compete" for some time. It's to their benefit to behave most of the time in ways that look like cooperation, even if there is no actual collusion. If both companies adopt strategies of cutthroat competition, then they'll get much slimmer profits than if they don't. Given that they both understand this, and they are both (relatively) rational actors, they will be reluctant to set off a cycle that might lead to drastically lower profit.

Contracts?

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.

Re:Contracts?

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.

Re:The way around this

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!

Why does this happen at all

I can not understand why companies where allowed to do this in the first place.

In normal countries paying for something you did not ask for would be considered fraud. But then I live in a country (Belgium) where generally the customer is more important then the companies.

Re:Why SMS?

Because SMS is generally free, at least in the UK and EU. It's only in the US, where they don't really understand how phones work, that they charge to both send and receive messages.

Show me one UK pay-monthly package that hasn't got at least 500 free SMSes per month, and I'll show you half a dozen more that do, often cheaper.

Not free in the EU

In fact it's damn expensive, around 10 cents a message.
That's because there is no real competition: in France, the three mobile operators have been fined over €600 million for anticompetitive collusion. There is room in the spectrum for a fourth operator, but Sarkozy's best bud with the existing ones (CEO godfather of his son) and since he's such a corrupt fucker, he is doing all he can to derail the allocation process.
But he's a right-wing "free market" advocate! Right!

Re:What a rip

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.

Re:What a rip

even more amusingly, you can simply sign up someone you don't like via a website simply by knowing their phone number. good times.

Re:What a rip

> don't like

What's to stop you signing up people you like, or even have no real opinion on?

Re:What a rip

Remind me not to get on your good or indifferent side....

Re:(shakes head)

-2 Missing point..

There's not even a way to OPT OUT of texting entirely. The consumer is stuck with the service whether or not he or she even wants it.

How stupid is that?

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

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?

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

Yes, and a gunfight would have broken out, resulting in not only the one dead passenger by the killer (that would have happened regardless), but several other dead passengers caught in the crossfire of inexperienced gun wielding idiots.

Right. And that would have been a MUCH better news story than just *one* lousy decapitation. That's why the US is the world media leader. More action, better suspense, and a deadlier final outcome.
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!