Rupert Koob installed an app on his mobile phone that - supposedly - recommended DHL via email.
He was preoccupied with the consequences for a long time.
Oberhaching
- Rupert Koob is not someone who would be clumsy with smartphones and computers.
On the contrary.
As a graduate engineer for mechanical engineering, the 69-year-old from Oberhaching worked at Siemens as a programmer, later he worked as a freelance IT administrator.
But at the beginning of September the trouble began for pensioner Koob: He received an email from the parcel shipper DHL about a pending delivery.
“Shortly afterwards I received another message, apparently also from DHL,” says Koob.
He was offered the installation of an app with which he could track the journey of the delivery vehicle online.
The play instinct won
Koop hesitated, then his "play instinct" won, as he himself says today.
He installed the app.
This was not without consequences: According to the individual connection records of his telecommunications provider 1 & 1, 4613 SMS were sent within 24 hours from September 2nd to 3rd.
The company therefore blocked Koob's cell phone on its own initiative, with the request that he reset his smartphone immediately in order to remove all apps.
What then annoyed Rupert Koob: The 1 & 1 AG, one of the leading telecommunications providers in Germany, demanded 456.69 euros for the SMS sent.
The company finally reduced it to 100 euros, as it was called, as a gesture of goodwill.
legal framework
That could have closed the case.
“I'm not concerned with the 100 euros, but with the principle,” says Rupert Koob.
So he did some research and came across the Telecommunications Act (TKG).
There it says in § 45i paragraph 4: "If the participant can prove that the use of the provider's services cannot be attributed to him, the provider has no claim to remuneration from the participant." justify the assumption that third parties have influenced the connection fee charged by unauthorized changes to public telecommunications networks. "
Pay partial damage
So Koob believed he was right, lodged an objection and refused to pay. But Provider 1 & 1 did not want his objection to apply. The reason: "In the case of SMS phishing, you received an SMS from an unknown number that claimed to have been sent by a parcel service. By clicking on the link contained in the message, malware was installed on your device and a large number of SMS was then sent in the background, ”the company said in an email. And: “That means that this SMS dispatch and the resulting fees were incurred as a result of the action on the end device. 1 & 1 is not responsible for this and gives reasons why we consider the SMS costs charged to be justified. The reduction of the invoice amount is a goodwill decision,since the use of the end device and the SIM card is your responsibility. ”In short: Koob should bear at least part of the costs, in this case 100 euros, himself.
Lawyer too expensive
Koob sensed a method behind the rejection of his provider.
Because: own legal steps are too expensive, a letter from a lawyer, since he has sought advice from a lawyer, would cost almost 200 euros.
So not worth it, quite apart from legal proceedings with an uncertain outcome.
Koob does not have legal protection insurance either.
The company would bet that every affected customer would “waive their rights” and pay without complaint for these reasons, speculates Koob.
Not with him.
And DHL is at least partially to blame in his eyes, as it could have indicated the danger of such fake emails, he says.
"I feel doubly tricked."
Telephone provider accommodating
In the meantime 1 & 1 has given way. At the request of Münchner Merkur, the company said, among other things: “We have no influence on which app a customer installs. We also have no influence on which security criteria the respective app is based on. The customer would actually have to submit his claims to the manufacturer or rather. Licensee of the app assert. "However:" Our customer service has nevertheless agreed to assume part of the costs incurred by the malware out of goodwill and without acknowledging a legal obligation. "The passage from the TKG would not apply in this case Wear. Nevertheless, "we will also forego the remaining sum that Mr. Koob has incurred through the installed malware, out of goodwill and without recognizing a legal obligation".
LK Munich newsletter: Everything from your region!
Our district Munich newsletter informs you regularly about all the important stories from the entire district - including all the news about the corona crisis in your community.
Sign up here.
