Maybe they can include Wind in this lawsuit?

[Dave114]

I noticed that the Big3 are being sued over deceptive advertising re: shortcodes, and just wondering if it's a bit unfair of the Competition Bureau not to include Wind in this lawsuit.

My plan including unlimited Canada-wide texting, doesn't include shortcodes if you read Wind's website - a section that you're only likely to find after looking at your bill or if you explicitly inquire about it.

The charges for premium text messages would seem to apply equally to Wind (or Mobilicity) as well as the big 3, but do any of the big3 charge separately for all shortcodes if you've got a texting plan?

(I'm speaking here of the shortcodes for things like transit not some of the silly ones that come with some absurd per-message or per-month fee).

[cmstlist]

The Big3, depends on who you're with. I don't think the parent brands charge extra for non-absurd short codes. But I know on my Virgin prepaid account I kept getting dinged for shortcodes above and beyond unlimited texting. Fido did not charge extra.

But no, the lawsuit is about the "absurd per-message or per-month" short codes.

[z24gta]

Wind seems to be exempt from any laws.

[robsaw]

But no, the lawsuit is about the "absurd per-message or per-month" short codes.

Actually, I'd say the lawsuit is about protecting foolish and ignorant people from themselves.

[droidhacker]

Actually, I'd say the lawsuit is about protecting foolish and ignorant people from themselves.

How, EXACTLY, does it make one "foolish and ignorant" to be forced to pay for unsolicited spam messages?

[droidhacker]

I noticed that the Big3 are being sued over deceptive advertising re: shortcodes, and just wondering if it's a bit unfair of the Competition Bureau not to include Wind in this lawsuit.

My plan including unlimited Canada-wide texting, doesn't include shortcodes if you read Wind's website - a section that you're only likely to find after looking at your bill or if you explicitly inquire about it.

The charges for premium text messages would seem to apply equally to Wind (or Mobilicity) as well as the big 3, but do any of the big3 charge separately for all shortcodes if you've got a texting plan?

(I'm speaking here of the shortcodes for things like transit not some of the silly ones that come with some absurd per-message or per-month fee).

My take on this situation is that robelus is actually responsible (i.e. through manipulation of the political system) for the rules being laid out in a way that allows these scammers to send unsolicited messages to mobile subscribers and have the charge appear on the phone bill. Wind has no choice but to follow the rules in this situation. The litigation is intended to cause the rules allowing/forcing this to happen to be eliminated, and have robelus pay back all the costs incurred by mobile subscribers for these scams. This should also include charges made through NON-robelus service providers. Robelus is considered liable for these charges since (1) the charges originated from some organization, UNAUTHORIZED by the mobile subscriber, (2) robelus PROFITS DIRECTLY from these charges by skimming a percentage.

These scams are undeniably total ripoffs, since the whole "not a real phone number" does not in any way facilitate the sending of these messages. Premium SMS messages can originate from ANY phone number, and in fact SHOULD originate from standard phone numbers. If the "services" were legitimate, they wouldn't depend on hiding behind the service provider -- they would contract with the mobile subscriber directly and fully bypass the mobile service provider. In the very least, to legitimize these "services" should require a manual agreement between the service provider and the mobile subscriber in order to authorize delivery. That means a web interface on the service provider's website identifying the originator, terms, price, and authorization (default to UNauthorized).