Cell Phone Affair: Gabriella Nagy and Rogers Debate

 

By Posted 22 May 2010, 08:32

We have an interesting article to show you now, in which one woman is suing Canadian provider Rogers for ‘exposing’ her affair to her husband. We want your views on who is right and who is wrong in this instance.

As reported from Huffington Post, Gabriella Nagy has been named as the woman who is taking Rogers to court, seeking $600,000 for “invasion of privacy and breach of contract – or destroying her marriage as she puts it.

It all happened when her husband found out via monthly bills from Rogers that one number in particular was called the most, prompting her husband to do some detective work and eventually find out that Nagy was participating in some out-of-home activities.

According to Nagy, her name should of been on the monthly bill letters from Rogers based on the contract terms, but the letters actually arrvied to her husband, which led to him finding out.

Here is what Nagy had to say on the matter in a recent statement released: “I want others to know what a big corporation has done. I trusted Rogers with my personal information. We had a contract — and agreement that put my life right in their hands.”

Meanwhile, Rogers has hit back saying that Nagy alone was responsible for what happened in her private life, and not them.

What are your thoughts for this? How can this woman blame Rogers for her act of infidelity?

  • Dano

    Ha! ha! So your got it, but not at home… Ha! ha! Real Dork… Never use your Cell for this kind of shit… Dork….

  • Dorothy Napier

    If you dance to the music, you pay to the piper. Don't blame the cell company for what you do. a cheater get caught and then go on to the next one. Stop trying to get paid for your wrong doing.

  • linda

    Her screwing around broke up the marriage – nothing to do with the tel. co. She is only peed off cause she got caught.
    Just another greedy person, not taking responsibility for her own actions, and blaming others

  • Angela

    First of all I don't believe Rodgers Wireless should be held accountable for her marriage falling apart. In the long run it probabley would have ended anyway. But I do feel Rodgers Wireless should be accountable for sending her personal information to another address than where she requested it be sent. It really does not matter if its a family member or best friend, your bills, statements, etc. should be sent to the address you as the consumer requested.

  • Cary

    Let me get this straight. . .she's blaming someone else for something SHE did? Suppose the situation was reversed. If she discovered her husband was having an affair, would she blame the wireless provider, or would she blame HIM? Rogers Wireless never told the husband about his wife's infidelity; he discovered the truth on his own. This is just another example of women refusing to accept blame or responsibility for something that is obviously their own fault. I predict she will lose her lawsuit next.

  • kathy

    Nagy is not blaming the phone company for affair, but for the breach of her privacy! When someone opens ANY account, they must provide personal information they would not provide if not required by the company. This does not give the company the right to provide this information to anyone else. To indicate it is not the customer's right to expect privacy is scarey as it could open a pandora's box to other mandatory information requested from people. I sincerely hope intelligence and sense prevail!

    • Warren

      Agreed, this is a simple violation of privacy. The phone copmpany is trying to wrap it in morality to divert their failure, when the real question is how this information or any personal information was sent to the wrong person. If they had sent financial information to the wrong person, everyone would feel differently.

  • Guest

    We only have her word on the contract issue and we now all know that her word is not worth very much.

    Since there are two sides to every story we'll have to wait for the outcome. In the court of public opinion however, I do believe that this woman, in spite of her chuzpa, has lost.

  • Larry

    We are in the day & age where everyone else is to blame for our mistakes.
    If someone is having an affair, it is just a matter of time before they are exposed.
    Therefore what one does in a case such as this, is to sue the first person or company that exposes their secret. In this case it was Rogers. To the one in the wrong it is a win win situation. Either the spouse will forgive you & take you back.
    Or, you lose the spouse, but are well compensated so that you never have to work again.

  • QosmiK

    Assuming that the two lived together in the same household, it would not be surprising that the envelope could be opened by either spouse, deliberately or accidentally.
    The lady should have been more careful. Legally the break-up might be considered as "consequential damage" even if the envelope had been addressed to the husband rather than the wife. In most contracts there are disclaimers to protect a company against consequential damages.

    • Helen C. Hafen

      This is not a case of consequential damage, this is a case of two accounts of third party disclosure, conspiracy to assist gabriella's husband in identity fraud, providing services to someone ((1)her husband with account changes, and (2)her lover with account information of her password which is also third party disclosure) other than an authorized user (Gabriella); of an account. This is misrepresentation which breached the contract. Consequential damage would have been if Gabriella's husband would have opened mail addressed to her instead of him. This is not the case.

      • QosmiK

        The article as appearing above states:

        "It all happened when her husband found out via monthly bills from Rogers that one number in particular was called the most, prompting her husband to do some detective work and eventually find out that Nagy was participating in some out-of-home activities."

        There is no evidence at all in the article of any deliberate violation of contractual obligations by the provider but, possibly, only of a mistake in addressing the envelope.
        Detective work by the husband could have been as simple as dialing the suspect phone number and did not require Rogers to get involved at all.

        Unless you have such proof, (may be from other sources?), reaching the conclusion of conspiracy and breach of contract -based solely on this article- is arbitrary and unfounded.

  • Mike

    Rogers is in no way, shape, or form responsible for this woman's infidelity.

    • Helen C. Hafen

      That is correct, Rogers is not responsible for Gabriella's infidelity. They are however responsible for two accounts of third party disclosure of her personal account's information and conspiracy in identity fraud which lead to breaches in her contract with Rogers. The damages that she suffered from was related to her (1) account expenses which should be refunded and future compensations, and (2) as the responsible party for releasing information which revealed her affair to her husband and (3) gave her password to her lover which caused additional marital problems by (3b) leading to harrassment of her and her husband by her lover because(2)(3) Roger's was guilty of two accounts of third party disclosure; of which, the second violation was more responsible for Gabriella losing 50% of income from her husband when he left and (3b) because of pain and suffering resulting from the acts of harrassment by her lover through Rogers, she lost her job and it's wages.

      • QosmiK

        Since you appear to know so much about the case, to the point of even outlining the structure of the intended damage claims, it seems obvious to me that you must be Gabriella's lawyer.

  • Kathi

    This is so sad. What is the world coming to where we think that others are responsible for our actions. First, don't have an affair and you won't have something to hide. Second, in my marriage, if my husband was getting a bill in his name I have every right to open it as he does. if you have something to hide, why would you have the evidence mailed to your home where you could get caught?!?. Third, how'd they get his name to put on the bill? Perhaps she provided it which falls under the 2nd point ~ why would you have evidence of your indiscretion sent to your home?!? Obviously he had other inclinations to her affair otherwise he wouldn't have looked so hard at the bill. DUH!!

  • guest

    …I see where she is coming from regarding her privacy. If her home address is different from the one on her contract then she may have something. If she was having it sent to her home which is that same address her husband has his bill sent to… I think she has nothing…. but this… all is still grasping at straws…

  • WillPower

    If she was so worried about her husband finding out about the affair, why did she not have the bill sent to her job. There had to be a reason for the husband opening the letter from the phone company. The last time I signed a cell contract, there wasnt a question asking if i were married or single. So the husbands name had to be somewhere on the envelope. My wife gets mail all the time with just her name on it that i dont open, but anything that has both our names on it, I open.

  • Russell

    Yes she should take responsibility for her actions. Yes the marriage would've probably been over at some point anyway and YES the phone company should be held financially liable for mishandling her personal information. As more and more information becomes available from more and more places it is ridiculaous the impunity with which major corporations treat out private health, and financial information. Credit reporting agencies are obscene. They chareg us to view and monitor our own information, they charge institutions to use it, and they have no oliability whatsoever for getting it worng. The corporate tempermant needs to be changed

  • JustAnother

    She has made a mistake in trying to include the loss of her marriage in this suit. As she is the person who is bring the case forward she will have to prove that the bills were consolidated based on the act of her cell phone company allow. That is that the bills were consolidated without her or her husbands consent.

    The breach of privacy is a stretch. She lived with her husband. There is limited privacy in a marriage. Even if Rogers didn't consolidate the bills it is still possible that her husband would have uncovered her indiscretion.

  • guest

    Our ways really do find us out and Rogers was the one used to bring the affair out. If it wasn't Rogers it would of been something else. The real issue is her ways, yes Rogers over stepped but it was her choices that had a huge part to play in her marriage ending.

  • Helen C. Hafen

    I think Rogers is guilty of third party disclosure to Gabriella's husband and her lover. I also think they are co-conspirators to identity fraud and misrepresentation of Gabriella, their client. I do not think Gabriella's husband would have left her for two reasons. One, he did not previously know about the affair and may not have ever found out if Rogers had not disclosed the information. Two, her lover harrassed her and her husband causing them pain and suffering after the second third party disclosure by Rogers. A fact, not all men leave their wives due to extra-marital affairs. Rogers is not innocent of two accounts of third party disclosure, conspiracy in identity fraud, and breach of contract just because the information unlawful disclosed was related to an extra-marital affair which was not permitted by her husband. I think Rogers owes Gabriella much more than $600,000 in lost wages. I think she should sue Rogers for a lifetime of lost wages and 50% of her husband's lost wages to her household. I also think Gabriella should get a 100% refund for all services rendered to her by Rogers and that they should pay for her replacement services to another company for the lifetime of Gabriella.

    • Helen C. Hafen

      I also think Gabriella should amend her complaint to add her husband and her lover as defendants. Rogers is not solely responsible in this lawsuit. The complaint should be against (1) Rogers for two accounts of third party disclosure. The first which resulted from conspiracy with identity fraud by her husband and misrepresentation and breach of contract by both, which resulted in assisting her husband in invasion of her privacy which led to marriage dissolution. The second which provided her lover with her password which resulted in her lover harrassing her and her husband, adding to the dissolution of her marriage and causing two cases of pain and suffering. Whereas she suffered doubly and it resulted in her losing her marriage status and her losing her job. Against (2) her husband for indentity fraud and unlawful acts against her as an adult by changing her account without her consent and conspiring with Rogers to do so which led to invasion of privacy and marriage dissolvement. Against (3)her lover for possible identity fraud to access her password with her account (with Rogers) and for pain and suffering, with the assistance of Rogers, which led to harrassment by her lover, which resulted in adding to her marriage dissolvement, and loss of her job.

      • Guest

        Are you really that stupid Helen?

  • QosmiK

    Since Helen C. Hafen appears to know so much about the case, to the point of even outlining the structure of the intended damage claims, it seems obvious to me that she must be Gabriella's lawyer and/or a hard core feminist.

  • Aaron

    Sounds about right. This is what people do in todays society. They blame others. No one likes to be accountable for there actions. Forget teh fact that she was having an affair and forget teh fact that the company sent the statement to the wrong person. The marriage broke up and she doesn't understand why. It has to be because the statement was sent to her husband. The blame game going on here. Happens all the time. Her marriage fell apart plain and simple Maybe she needs to look within and see the big picture here instead of pointing fingers and trying to get some easy money.And the company needs to take a good look at it's employees performing their job duties.

  • Guest

    Sorry – had to break this up into multiple parts as the system would not accept one big long post:

    Another slob looking for a free lunch.

    I worked in a call centre for a different cell phone company. I don't know what Rogers' verification policies are regarding bill consolidation or other aspects of working on an account, but our company had verification methods in place for people to work on accounts where they were not the account holders (verifying personal information on the account such as the SSN (it is an American company) and account number, or providing the account passcode if the account has one – not to be confused with a voicemail password that Nagy's sideshow lover somehow alledgedly acquired). If a caller knew the account passcode, or knew all necessary information otherwise if the account did not have a passcode, that would allow the caller to work on that account (to consolidate bills or otherwise), even if he/she is not the account holder. Maybe Rogers has a similar policy, and the husband knew the passcode or other required information, and this has not been brought to our attention yet.

    • Guest

      These big cell phone companies have very long, complicated service agreements. You almost need a degree in law to understand them. This way, they can protect themselves against liability. Chances are that, even if the husband didn't get the bills consolidated and Rogers simply chose to do it on their own, their actions are covered in the terms of the service agreement somehow someway (saw it all the time where I worked). Furthermore, she may have been sent a notification about the impending consolidation (when she received a previous bill) but didn't bother reading it, and is now trying to say that she "never saw it coming."

      In the end, odds are that Rogers will not be found liable for anything, whether you agree with it or not.

      Her credibility is zero, and her morals are completely absent. Plain and simple.

      • Guest

        I saw the report on Global News. I watched her waddle up and down the sidewalk with the reporter while she told everyone that she accepts responsibility for the affair. It's clear that she does not accept ANY responsibility for her actions whatsoever, because if she did, then she would acknowledge that she is to blame for the marriage break-up, and not blame anyone else for it.

        She's a greedy cheater who got caught and is looking to blame others. It's obscene that this is what the world has come to. She screws around on the husband, and now she wants to be rewarded for it?

        • Guest

          As long as she doesn't feel bad for her disgusting actions, she deserves everything bad that happens to her.

          I hope Rogers countersues her for court costs, and takes her for everything she's worth regarding this ridiculous, laughable lawsuit.

          People like her are what's wrong with this world – they stab people in the back and want to be rewarded for it. It's amazing how people can have this much of a lack of moral centre. They only focus on what they want, and are completely oblivious to how their actions might affect someone else.

          The husband and their children are the REAL victims in all this – not Gabriella Nagy

LATEST NEWS