Compensation of $1,500 for a user who feels that his or her data has not been well protected
The facts of this case unfold as follows.
A hacker managed to gain access to an online account belonging to the lady. They managed to place an order on behalf of the latter, which increased her bill by $2,000. The judge in charge of the case found that Rogers was not vigilant enough and the subterfuge directed at his client should have been known. "Rogers has been at fault with both the safeguards in place to prevent fraud and the management of the situation following the first signs of the commission of fraud," the judge ruled.
This article will also interest you: Protecting your company from data leaks
In this case, it all begins on November 24, 2016. An unidentified individual manages to impersonate the customer concerned from his mobile operator with the aim of adding another number to his account. He manages, of course, to answer all the identification questions allowing him to pretend to be the lady. In this way, he places an order for a new phone and makes sure following some modifications to be able to use a 2GB internet plan. Which is huge considering the standard package used by the lady which is 2GB. what is quite striking in the story is that all the exchanges between the cyber-security and the mobile operator were done in English which is not the usual language of communication of the lady. When ID, the hacker made a mistake at least twice before finding the right date of birth. Unfortunately for the customer it is only 2 weeks later that she discovers that she is unable to use Internet data because her operator informed her that she had reached the limit. And when she inquires with Rogers customer service, she is told that her son is the reason for such high internet data consumption. The problem is that the latter has no sons. After several attempts to resolve the problem through several phone calls, she physically had to go to Rogers headquarters to reactivate her account. It was then that the fraud management department was informed.
that was a shock for this lady to receive as bill to pay the month that followed $2133. To correct this problem, it took about 2 months and several procedures for this lady to finally be released from this absurd obligation. For her part, the client will require Rogers to pay her a compensation of $3,000 in damages, will file a complaint with the Commissioner for Complaints on Services Quebec's telecommunications and security. The company will then offer the lady a $400 compensation that the commission judge will find acceptable. When The Lady made a claim to the Small Claims Court of Quebec, the sum was raised to the tune of 4,500 dollars. So the judge at this point, decides him compensation of up to $1,500 on the basis: "Although the fraudster clearly had personal information about [the client], the presence of adequate safeguards would have prevented damage. Proper management of the situation would also have reduced the duration of the fraud and its impact"
When questioned by the media, Rogers spokeswoman Caroline Phémius said, "We take the privacy and security of our customers very seriously, and as fraudsters use ever-changing techniques to try to take advantage of consumers in the wireless industry, we continually strengthen our security measures and verification procedures to protect our customers from fraudulent activity."
Now access an unlimited number of passwords: