Jun 222010
 June 22, 2010  Posted by  Business, Court, Featured News

Last week, this site posted an update to the Canadian case where a customer sued Rogers Wireless for bundling her cell phone account without her authorization. Gabriela Nagy claims that her husband discovered that she had had an affair when he looked at the detailed phone records that were included in the newly bundled account. I had taken the position as a non-lawyer that even if her conduct was immoral by society’s standards, the business had a privacy policy and contract that would still be applicable. As I noted in the blog entry, law prof Dave Hoffman had a different view of the case than I had, and thought her claims would fail in an American court. I was really confused and surprised by what he seemed to be saying and his reasoning, and said so. Apparently, I wasn’t the only one who was surprised and confused by his position, as law prof Dan Solove also expressed some surprise and confusion.

In response to comments on his first blog entry, Dave has now posted a new, more detailed blog post about privacy and contract law that is one of the most eye-opening pieces I’ve read in a long time. That he took the time to articulate his reasoning with legal cites is very much appreciated by this non-lawyer and is just one more example of why I think Concurring Opinions is must-read blog for anyone interested in privacy law.

I look forward to seeing the responses to Dave’s analysis and argument while I mull it over. See what you think.

(update to fix some typo’s)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.