The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Cellcom gave phone to another customer - and will pay tens of thousands | Israel today

2022-04-02T20:07:01.063Z


Attorney Tom Schnep, who represented the plaintiff, claimed that the phone was handed over to a third party without her consent and knowledge, while Cellcom hid it from her for several days and thus prevented her from minimizing her damages. • On the other hand, the company claimed it was an unfortunate human error


Cellcom will pay NIS 34.5 thousand, including attorney's fees, as compensation to a customer who handed over her phone for repair, and discovered to her amazement a few days later that it had been handed over to another customer, without her knowing anything.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff handed over her cell phone for repair at the service center. After the cell phone was repaired by the company, the plaintiff was asked to come to the service center to pick it up.

But the next day, when the plaintiff reached the defendant, she was told that the cell phone had not yet returned from repair, and she was asked to arrive at another time.

Subsequently, following a third-party phone call to the plaintiff's husband, it became clear that Cellcom had provided the plaintiff's mobile phone with her details to the third party, and that it was in his possession for several days.

Attorney Tom Schnep, who represented the plaintiff, argued that the defendant handed over her mobile device to the third party without her consent and knowledge. The plaintiff alleged that in handing over her cell phone to the third party, the defendant disclosed the plaintiff's information contained in the cell phone, including photos, access to bank accounts and credit cards, private correspondence and more.

On the other hand, the company claimed that this was an unfortunate case of human error, which did not cause any harm to the plaintiff.

She further denied that she had infringed on the plaintiff's privacy and the allegation of negligence and breach of agreement.

The judge wrote that Cellcom's actions "amount to gross negligence, which in any case constitutes an exception to immunity, even if its existence had been proven."

Were we wrong?

Fixed!

If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us

Source: israelhayom

All news articles on 2022-04-02

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.