12 Billion Class Action to proceed against Canadian Carriers over System Access Fees

Originally Posted by Prom1

BINGO!

I recall working for wireless support years ago and being trained first to say it was a government imposed fee that needed to be charged for each line so that in case of an audit Rogers could show & submit the fee back to the CRTC. (something close to that verbiage) Then being retrained to NOT stated ECF was government imposed fee ... just before the first lawsuit against Rogers showed up - 14/15yrs + in the past.

I hope there is a SPECIFIC claus after the lawsuit is successful that Rogers canNOT imposed significantly increased fees (says 2yrs) else it nullify's anyone person's contract with Rogers as a breach by Rogers.

I recall being told something like that in the late 90s/early 2000s, about it being held for possible submission to the government. I remember thinking that was weird but figured it must be true or they would be guilty of fraud.

As for the rate increases, that is already in their TOS and in their code of conduct as a member of the CWTA. Not that I think that would prevent them from trying to push through the increase or even stop them from telling customers it doesn't nullify their contracts. But any change that negatively affects the customer is grounds for a get out of jail free card. I expect the usual suspects here will then say that prices are not part of the contract either.

Some lawyer is about to make $11.9 billion dollars, and we're all going to get cheques for 58 cents.

Originally Posted by MichaelSargent

Some lawyer is about to make $11.9 billion dollars, and we're all going to get cheques for 58 cents.

If we are lucky. When facebook was sued over their privacy policies, the settlement resulted in a $10 million pay out to the lawyers, the 'victims' received nothing and facebook agreed to change the ways. A previous lawsuit against facebook, for $9.5 million, was settled with $3 million going to the lawyers and the rest going to fund a study.

Curious to see how this will play out. I know that all three companies had problems with their employees saying that it was a requirement when it wasn't, even years after the training had been changed.

Not confident that it would make a difference, anyway - I remember last year Rogers gave all their home phone users one free day of long distance, and that was the result of a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by iridescence

Curious to see how this will play out. I know that all three companies had problems with their employees saying that it was a requirement when it wasn't, even years after the training had been changed.

The fact that training had to change implies they were being indoctrinated with improper information to begin with. Can't fault employees for taking time to shake off the old training and certainly the company is completely at fault if they instructed staff to say certain things.

Originally Posted by iridescence

Not confident that it would make a difference, anyway - I remember last year Rogers gave all their home phone users one free day of long distance, and that was the result of a lawsuit.

I expect free life time subscription to Chatelain for all.

Originally Posted by iridescence

Not confident that it would make a difference, anyway - I remember last year Rogers gave all their home phone users one free day of long distance, and that was the result of a lawsuit.

That's so incredibly stingy I don't even know what to say...one day!? If it was, say, three years of free long distance, I'd still wonder why Rogers wasn't putting in that much of an effort to rectify the situation...but one day, it was probably more of a way to hook people into making direct LD calls with Rogers or something.

Originally Posted by ceredon

If we are lucky. When facebook was sued over their privacy policies, the settlement resulted in a $10 million pay out to the lawyers, the 'victims' received nothing and facebook agreed to change the ways.

i'm clearly in the wrong line of work.

Is it surprising that Rogers would lie to you about system access fees? I'm not sure that really needs answering....

It has been documented that we have the least competitive, most expensive telecom market in the developed world. Unfortunately our government has had to get involved and tell phone companies they are not allowed to lie to us. Seems kinda obvious, but not when your standard policy is lying I guess.

However, the government partially got us into this mess in the first place, since by law companies with majority foreign ownership are banned. This law is up for repeal however, and when foreign investment is allowed we may finally get real competition and have our prices and service correct to their real market levels. This would put a company like Rogers out of business most likely, and I will shed no tears.

Great!More lawsuits should follow: against GRRF, against CRTC, against contracts that locks people, against locked phones to providers, against no competition, against locked canadian market to foreign investments.

Just received this email:

Dear Xxxxx Xxxxxx:

As you may know from news reports yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear an appeal from a lower court decision which certified a class action on behalf of many Canadian cellular phone users who paid the so-called ‘system access fees’.

Please click on http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...2-d408eaf68821 to read about this success by Merchant Law Group on behalf of consumers.

Please encourage your friends to join our contact list for the Cellular System Access Fee class action, simply by visiting www.merchantlaw.com. This class action asserts that people who paid cellular system access fees should receive compensation if this class action is ultimately successful.

There is also information about other class actions on our website. Our law firm recently settled a class action regarding Celebrex and Bextra. Similarly, a recent settlement has been reached regarding Vioxx. A few months ago, our lawyers won certification against Aeroplan on behalf of many people who lost their accumulated miles. There are many other class action cases listed on our website that may be of interest or potentially affect you.

The class action work being pursued by Merchant Law Group is important in achieving fairness for Canadians.

While you may know Merchant Law Group for our class action work, please keep us in mind for other legal services as well. We operate 12 offices in six provinces. Merchant Law Group is a general service law firm – personal injury, criminal defence, wills, family law, civil litigation, immigration, business law and other areas – our quality service to Canadians is broadly based.

Thank you.

Josh Merchant
_____________________
Merchant Law Group LLP


N.B. – Our law firm continues to work on this class action litigation and we think very significant compensation is due to the class but currently there is no class action compensation process sanctioned by the Courts. This general information is being provided simply as a courtesy update, and nothing in our correspondence is intended to be legal advice or opinion. Although we may by e-mail only send you info bulletins rendered in respect of this class action in the future, we undertake no solicitor-client obligations to you or duty to ensure that you receive future email notice (official notice of class action settlements normally occurs by way of newspaper ad notices or as otherwise directed by the courts).

Our firm is not in a position to provide advice on your personal circumstances or to undertake to preserve any limitations. We cannot predict whether or not you would be eligible to seek compensation if this class action is successful before the Court. We cannot offer to individually represent you in regards to this class action matter. Our firm is pursuing these matters by way of a class action, and we are not pursuing any individual lawsuits on behalf of putative class members. If your email address changes in the future, please provide your new contact info on our cellular class action website.

Originally Posted by MichaelSargent

Some lawyer is about to make $11.9 billion dollars, and we're all going to get cheques for 58 cents.

So true!!!

When I worked for Hell Mobility from 1997 to 2004 we were told to tell clients SAF is the CRTC regulation fee that is paid to them. If that wasn't true then it's a legit lawsuit. They made it sound like it was a fee paid to directly to the government like HST.

HOLY COW did anyone look at the list of class action lawsuits in that link!! That's insane.. I bet any of us could qualify for one or more of them... no wonder lawyers are so rich and there have to be warnings on toasters to not use them in the bath...

In class actions, only lawyers win. I've been a wireless customer since CANTEL Amigo days.... So my payout should be 28 cents.

Weird thing is my grff fees got lowered by a couple cents... From 2,75$ >2,53$ for the phone and 1,93$>1,81$ for my ipad, which is sharing data with my main plan. The effect took place from april to may.


Sent from my iPad 4G

Originally Posted by SweetCell

When I worked for Hell Mobility from 1997 to 2004 we were told to tell clients SAF is the CRTC regulation fee that is paid to them. If that wasn't true then it's a legit lawsuit. They made it sound like it was a fee paid to directly to the government like HST.

Yep, same here when I worked for them. We were told how to "position" it when clients complained. It was just out-and-out lies, and an unfee for pure profit.

I signed up for the class action suit; whatever I can get is better in my pockets than theirs.

Just signed as well, for the same reason as WIRC.

giggity for $1.38 settlement cheques.

I don't care if I get any money back unlike some of you (who would spent hundred dollars on phones, and yet anxious about what the payout is. gee, the case hasn't even gone to proceedings yet!). But I do care a lot about this case!

Years ago, I kept telling fellow HoFo members that SAF is wrong, because of how it is described and told. Many fellow HoFo members combated me on it, toeing on the providers' side. I feel that nobody would even listen to the logic. Later on, the news media caught on to it, later on, the lawyers caught on to it, and now the court caught on to it. But no, many HoFo members are still in denial, I bet.

I hate to say that "I told you so", and I can't wait to see the outcome from the judgement. I'm not even sure who will win this. But basically, to call it right is wrong, it being "telling the customers that it is a government mandated fee, and the government collected fee, all the way from dealers who represent the providers, up to the reps who work for the providers, and also across the providers". It is a lie and thus it is wrong. Calling it right is thus wrong. And many people did exactly that on HoFo, repeatedly in those times.

My question in corresponding to Howard's question in the OP is this: anyone has ever paid a $48. a year System Licence Fee? I have and I might still have some old invoice to show for it from BC Tel, from 1993 and on. Yes, it didn't say SAF, it said System Licence Fee. Even in 1993 (before I joined HoFo, LOL), I KNEW it was wrong, as I KNEW the gov did not collect individual LICENCE FEE from it. But at the time I swallowed it as little I could do.

The gov did collect individual licence fee way back in the 80's, or that's what I found out. The fee quickly was removed when cellular market expanded. The carriers kept charging the fee, pocketing it of course.

When it was found out, they probably weren't allowed to use the term "licence fee" as that implicated a government fee (as who else as an entity has the authority to issue a Licence, may I ask? right?), so they changed that to System Access Fee in the late 90's.

Most carriers charged $48/year. But when ClearNET came out, they gave customers a choice: $4.50 / month or $48 / year. (Of course I chose the per year one, as it saves a few bucks! when I was on ClearNET). Then later on, providers copied that idea and started to charge per monthly, rather than annually, making that amount "easier to swallow" as most people are very poor in math!

But charging $4.50 a month didn't last for long. When competitions grew, and subsidy on phones grew BIG TIME, they need to get the money back somewhere. I forgot which provider started to charge $6.95 for SAF, and again soon, other providers did the copycat act (this is the only thing they know how to do). Of course, Bell even made it $8.95 because most customers are simply stupid people!

When I was writing on some threads way back when, I had argued that a $20./mo plan might sound attractive enough for someone to even sign up a plan or even a term contract. But at $26.95, it is 34.75% more expensive. If you go to buy a camera and were told the camera was only $100., how would you feel if you were told it'd be 134.75 at the end? This is exactly the same thing. Most customers at the time prefer to sign up for the lowest price plan because all they want is to have a cellphone. Most people weren't power users then. A 34.75% difference is not a small delta. It is significant! ANd that's why this fee, as a wrongfully described lie, is also substantial in the monthly spending / their money collected.

Often, I witnessed during a phone purchase and subsequent plan selection and subsequent signing up of a plan at dealers, the SAF / LF was the last part that was mentioned / discussed, and when asked, the "gov mandated / collected" line was thrown out, and since that was already so late in the process, the customer just shrugged and went w/ it and in their mind, blamed the Canadian gov on how they were like vampires etc. Yes, the customers didn't even bother to find out the truth and blame the right party.

For me, I want all my System Licence Fee refunded from BC Tel. I accept that SAF was sneaky but since I knew about it, I can't fault them for collecting them. But System Licence Fee is a blatant lie. (Because I did pay DOC / Communications Canada / Industry Canada a Licence Fee for other Radio Service, I knew. I got the yellow paper to show for it).

Actually it wasn't $4.50 a month, it was $4 a month or $48 once a year from what I remember. At first you had no choice you had to pay $48 once a year, and when clearNET, Fido/Microcell came around mid nineties then they gave us an option to pay $48 once a year or $4 monthly. Now from what I recall when it was $4 a month or $48 a year it indeed did go to the government. I could be wrong but around 93 to 95 the fee of $4 a month or $48 a year had disappeared (don't know the reason why it disappeared), & immediately it became a system access of $6.95 ($8.95 at Bell) which went to the cell carrier so people just assumed that it went up from $4 to $6.95. Which of course was not true. I know my $amounts are correct but I could be wrong if the $4 or $48 went to the Government or not. I have had cell phone in my family since mid eighties so I know for a fact those were the fees we we paid.

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note LTE running on Bell's HSPA+/LTE Network