Woman suing cell phone company for $600,000 for breaking up her marriage.
- Thread starter Garland
- Start date
DairyGirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2009
- Messages
- 5,205
- Reaction score
- 40
Wow, cry me a river.
crystalgenie
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 597
- Reaction score
- 9
no words...:rotfl:
drip~drop
kiss a fuzzie
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 4,634
- Reaction score
- 12
I trusted Rogers with my personal information. We had a contract -- an agreement that put my life right in their hands"
Too funny! another "oops my hot coffee was hot." d'oh.:waitasec:
fran
Former Member
LOL, she lost her husband because she was messing around and then she lost her job because of the economy {stoooopid}, she was after all a real estate agent!
She's looking for some $$$ and why not go to the deep pockets.
A judge and jury will see right through her little get-rich scheme.:croc:
It wasn't the phone company's fault, it was KARMA!
JMHO
fran
She's looking for some $$$ and why not go to the deep pockets.
A judge and jury will see right through her little get-rich scheme.:croc:
It wasn't the phone company's fault, it was KARMA!
JMHO
fran
Muffet
Autocorrect is my worst enema
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,053
- Reaction score
- 8
ITA with all of you. OTOH, I also think the cell phone company should be fined something for breaching the contract and her privacy, just for the sake of precedent.
I mean, my first thought was what if this had been an innocent woman beaten or killed by a crazy jealous husband or live-in, because he thought she was cheating.
She too would have been foolish to use the same phone company or address, even with her maiden name, but, jmo, no company should make the unilateral choice for her to share her personal data with any man (or woman) living at the same address or elsewhere.
I mean, my first thought was what if this had been an innocent woman beaten or killed by a crazy jealous husband or live-in, because he thought she was cheating.
She too would have been foolish to use the same phone company or address, even with her maiden name, but, jmo, no company should make the unilateral choice for her to share her personal data with any man (or woman) living at the same address or elsewhere.
Since the original bill was being sent to the address where she and her husband both lived, even if it was address to her maiden name, don't you think that he would have eventually discovered her deceit anyway? I guess I could understand it if the original bill was being sent to a completely different address, but it wasn't. What proof does she have that he did not become suspicious until after the consolidated bill was received? I think that is going to be the key issue to this lawsuit. IMO