Wireless no consent/contract conflicts with agreement New
Issue(s):Problème(s) :
Wireless – No Consent/Contract conflicts with agreement
Obligations Met: Yes
Date: 10/22/2026
Language: English
Report ID: 1290
Overview
This report documents our findings for the following issue raised by the customer:
The customer’s complaint is that the service provider activated an account, service or contract without the customer’s consent, or the details of the contract differ from what was agreed to during the initial transaction.
Please note that, in their complaint, the customer also submitted issues that fall outside of the scope of our mandate. As a result, our investigation findings are based solely on the numbered issue listed above.
Summary of Findings
After analyzing the information and evidence from both parties, we determined that the service provider reasonably performed its obligations toward the customer and found no failure in its handling of the issues brought forth.
Analysis Details
Issue 1: The customer’s complaint is that the service provider activated an account, service or contract without the customer’s consent, or the details of the contract differ from what was agreed to during the initial transaction.
The customer’s complaint is that the service provider activated an additional wireless service account in the customer’s name, which the customer did not request, at the time of account creation.
On November 24, 2024, the customer activated one wireless service account. They claim that the service provider then activated a second wireless service account in the customer’s name, which they did not request. The customer’s complaint is that the second account should not have been opened, and the customer should not have been charged continuously for this account.
We reviewed the customer’s service agreements to confirm that two separate service agreements were created on November 24, 2024.
We note that both service agreements stipulate different account numbers, phone numbers and SIM card numbers for plans on a month-to-month basis.
Importantly, we note that both service agreements are signed by the customer.
As the service agreement for the line in dispute is signed by the customer, we find that the service provider respected its obligation toward the customer in activating and billing the customer for the disputed service account from the time of account creation until the time of account cancellation.
We note that the account notes reflect that the service provider opened a fraud case on March 31, 2025, when the customer first reported the disputed account, but the account note from April 23, 2025, confirms that the fraud investigation did not reveal any irregularities in the creation of the disputed account.
Further, we note that the customer and service provider both confirmed that the service provider had provided a credit on the disputed account to clear the account balance and had reversed the negative credit reporting, which occurred on the customer’s disputed account. As no failure was identified in the service provider’s obligations, we note that this was a goodwill gesture by the service provider.