: $100 Million lawsuit against Rogers because ROD not working
Okay, so we first had
Judge sues cleaner for $65M over pants (http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=63399)
and everybody said "only in the United States"
Well how about a Canadian law firm that wants to file a $100 million class action lawsuit against Rogers?
Because the Rogers Video On Demand services didn't work properly during the period of June to September 2006!
(discussed in this thread (http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=57678) )
Glenn and Loretta Wilkins of Whitby Ontario are represented by Todd J. McCarthy and Sean A. Brown of Flaherty Dow Elliott & McCarthy.
The reason I know about this is that one of lawyers tried cross-posting on the Digital Forum (which we all know is against the Rules of the Forum that you agree to when you sign up!) trying to drum up business.
(just so you don't think, I'm making this up click here (http://www.cba.org/ClassActions/class_2007/ontario/main/2007-01-02_rogers.aspx) )
2007-06-25, 06:09 PM
Where the hell are we going to? They have to be related with that judge and his travelling pants.
2007-06-25, 06:18 PM
I think these bonehead lawyers should have to pay the cost of judges, etc. and they should be fined for these frivolous law suits. Give the law firms a 3 strikes your out (lose your ability to practice) against this waste of taxpayers time and dollars!
2007-06-25, 06:49 PM
Unbelieveable. A $100 million lawsuit over an inconvenience. Idiots. :rolleyes:
2007-06-25, 08:24 PM
Hang on .... it's a class action. No one, not even the prospective plaintiff's lawyers, are saying anyone is entitled to $100 million in damages. Rogers has how many customers affected by the potential claim? Five hundred thousand? Maybe a million? The lawyers are filing a claim that $100 million in damages be distributed amongst eligible plaintiffs. That might amount to $50 each, maybe $100, as a form of consumer activism to combat Rogers' arrogance.
It's actually not a bad tactic because companies like Rogers have for years ignored slight service disruptions (in terms of not offering compensation) and it is not worth anyone's time or effort to pursue on their own. That is the exact purpose of class action legislation, to allow aggrieved individuals to band together with a common claim against a common defendant.
There are plenty of times to raise an eyebrow at plaintiff side litigation lawyers. But this actually isn't one of them and bears no resemblance to the idiocy that goes on in US courts.
That said, I suspect it unlikely that the court will actually certify this action (because I suspect Rogers has actually credited many customers who complained).
That is the exact purpose of class action legislation, to allow aggrieved individuals to band together with a common claim against a common defendant.
Because the ON DEMAND system wasn't working?
A class action suit for Rogers losing "confidential" customer information or the CIBC last year when all that confidential credit information was lost is a great reason for a classs action but because ROD wasn't working?
I think some perspective is needed here.
2007-06-25, 09:06 PM
I agree with you hugh, in general, but too many times large companies simply ignore their failure to live up to the service commitments they make. If you or I break a contract, there are consequences ... if I break my word professionally, there are consequences ... why shouldn't Rogers face some consequence for not living up to a service commitment they made?
We're talking about a very nominal amount here (forget the amount claimed). Any realistic settlement will be around $25 per customer who didn't get the service. Rogers taking the hit will benefit not just their customers, but those of Shaw, Telus, and Bell as well.
I am so tired of the arrogance that we get routinely treated with. At some point, someone was going to react ... I, for one, am glad to see it.
Is it as important or significant as the breach of privacy issue? No. Is it anywhere near as important a use of class action legislation as the CIBC overtime lawsuit? Definitely not. But is it in the public interest? Yes. Is it an abuse of the legal system? Nope. Is it frivolous or vexatious? Not a chance.
2007-06-25, 09:17 PM
Frankly, I think a class action suit again BEV is long overdue for billing errors alone. Not to mention equipment issues, ongoing no signal issues, contradictory customer service etc.
If I were not to pay my bill, Bell would not hesitate to use every legal means to get my money. But if Bell doesn't provide the service as expected and as advertised, well, poor me.
I applaud those taking the steps to hold Rogers accountable for service failures and I hope to see much more of this in the future.
As mentioned earlier, Rogers will typically reimburse you if you have some loss of service. ROD is different. They could meet their contractual demands for ROD with one movie for example. This is not a television network we're talking about and it's an "optional" service. This was especially true during the rollout.
This was not an absence of service, it was simply something that would be nice to have, but wasn't available.
The demand for ROD exceeded expectations and created many of the issues, so they had to scramble to try to meet those expectations, which they eventually did.
You can't sue a grocery store if they don't have stock of a particular item. All you can get is a rain check.
2007-06-25, 11:47 PM
Yes. But a grocery store won't charge you for stock they don't have and can't take home with you.
If the demand for ROD exceeded expectations then Rogers should not be charging full rate until capacity allowed for it. This is a company with a very poor reputation for just this type of arrogant treatment of customers. They were so bad in BC that the government of the day passed legislation against negative option marketing (legislation still on the books) because of Rogers and their arrogant refusal to deal straight with their customers.
Getting smacked by the BC government did nothing to correct the behaviour, they just pulled a territory swap with Shaw to avoid the massive consumer backlash. They simply haven't learned in all these years to treat customers with respect so maybe when it hits them directly in the bottom line, they will finally pay attention.
Rogers should not be charging full rate until capacity allowed Rogers didn't charge anything if it didn't work. Again, this is an optional service and is not part of any package.
As for negative option billing, please, that was last century and they DID correct that behavior.
2007-06-26, 12:04 AM
They corrected it because it was made illegal. Let's not give them credit for customer focus. I only raised it to illustrate that the arrogance that drove frustrated customers to file a class action lawsuit has been an issue with them for a long time.
That arrogance has been long corrected. They are now one of the better service providers and quite customer focused. Don't compare the Rogers of 2006 with the Rogers of 1995. I'm not saying they're perfect, but they're a lot better than they were over a decade ago and they're also better than most service providers/companies that I have to deal with.
2007-06-26, 12:37 AM
I have no real current frame of reference, other than my Fido account and my experience there is so-so. Your comments don't seem reflective of what I see on the forums, but I would defer to your first hand experience.
However, clearly there are a lot of upset customer who do not feel that Rogers has done enough. I respect the approach they are taking and hope it causes large, quasi-monopoly, organizations to take notice.
2007-06-26, 07:04 AM
I agree such a lawsuit is a waste of time and money, but then again, some of the services that cos like Rogers offer are close to fraudulent....ROD and TMN on Demand have an interface that is archaic, slow and shaky. The also have the same HD channel (PBS) that they count twice as an HD channel.
Its like selling a car whose brakes are a hole in the floor where you drag your foot.....well its a brake isn't it ?????
....or like the cell phone coverage where I live...lucky to get one bar...but its still coverage...