After an extended period of contesting her massive cellphone bill for unauthorized charges, a law professor at York University in Toronto has apparently settled her dispute with Rogers Wireless (Rogers). According to a newspaper report, the cellphone in question had been stolen and then used to make over 350 calls to foreign countries such as Pakistan, Libya and Syria. It appeared that Rogers' fraud detection software (which notes dramatic changes in calling patterns) did not trigger a shutdown of the phone in question. At first, Rogers insisted that the customer would have to pay for the unauthorized calls. The law professor contested the charges and filed suit in Small Claims Court. The professor's research, which she conducted in connection with the dispute, revealed that several years ago the cellphones of senior Rogers' executives had been "cloned" by a group linked to a Middle Eastern terrorist organization. An issue that would have been relevant in any litigation over the dispute was a clause in the Rogers form of phone subscriber contract forbidding class action suits and requiring the use of ADR instead of the courts. As noted in a recent issue of E-TIPS® (Vol 4, No 8, October 12, 2005), "French Court Affirms 2004 AOL Standard Form Contract Decision"), in Ontario even if a mandatory arbitration process is contained in a consumer contract, a consumer may still participate in class actions. Although differing US legislation would be applicable, much the same question (the ability of a service provider to mandate settlement exclusive of small claims tribunals and class actions) was raised in the California Court of Appeal (in Aral v Earthlink Inc) reported in the previous issue of E-TIPS® (Vol 4, No 12, December 7, 2005), "California Court Grapples with Dispute Settlement in a Click-Through Agreement"). For two newspaper reports in The Globe and Mail, visit: http://makeashorterlink.com/?K3F02285C; and http://makeashorterlink.com/?I2111285C Summary by: The Editor

E-TIPS® ISSUE

05 12 21

Disclaimer: This Newsletter is intended to provide readers with general information on legal developments in the areas of e-commerce, information technology and intellectual property. It is not intended to be a complete statement of the law, nor is it intended to provide legal advice. No person should act or rely upon the information contained in this newsletter without seeking legal advice.

E-TIPS is a registered trade-mark of Deeth Williams Wall LLP.