Investigation Finding Report

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 error in its handling of the issues brought forth.

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 in January 2025, the service provider changed their wireless phone number without their consent.
• The customer explained that they were travelling outside of Canada at the time of the phone number change and that they could not have consented to the number change. The customer further clarified that they did not authorize any other person on their account and that they believe that their privacy was breached because of the change.
• We note that privacy-related complaints remain outside of scope of the CCTS mandate. This investigation seeks to determine whether the service provider had followed its own process in gaining the customer’s consent to change the wireless number.
• The customer further notes that they were charged a fee of $50.00 for the wireless phone number change, which they maintain they did not request. The customer also confirmed that while the phone number was changed in January 2025, the service provider restored their original number in February 2025 and added additional security to their account to prevent unauthorized changes in the future.
• In determining the service provider’s obligations, we reviewed the customer’s signed service agreement, dated November 30, 2024, which states that the customer agreed to a month-to-month service and that the customer agreed to the service provider’s terms of service.
• We reviewed the service provider’s terms of service, which state that the customer does not own their phone number and that the customer remains responsible for the account or activities if anyone uses it. The terms of service also outline that the customer remains responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of login names, passwords or other identification methods they use to access the account.
• We reviewed the service provider’s privacy policy and an explanation from the service provider on what it does to authenticate a customer when they call to make a change. The privacy policy outlines that the service provider will request identifying personal information to ensure the account holder is calling to make the change. The service provider explained that accounts are secured with a personal identification number (PIN), and that if a customer cannot provide this number, the service provider will instead request the customer to provide three (3) additional pieces of personal information that it has on file to verify the account.
• We reviewed the account contact records from November 30, 2024, through February 28, 2025, which demonstrate:
  • On January 4, 2025, someone claiming to be the customer contacted the service provider and was unable to verify their PIN; instead, they provided the service provider with the customer’s date of birth, their driver’s licence number and billing address to verify the account. Once this verification was completed, they requested that the phone number be changed and agreed to a $50.00 number change fee.
  • On January 12, 2024, the customer contacted the service provider to ask why their number was changed. They were unable to verify their PIN and instead provided the service provider with their date of birth, driver’s licence number and billing address to verify the account. The customer requested that the service provider change their number back to their original phone number.
  • On February 7, 2025, the service provider agreed to return the customer’s original phone number but declined to provide a credit for the number change fee, as the request was made after the caller verified the account.
• We reviewed the customer’s invoices from December 2024 through March 2025, which demonstrate that the customer was billed in accordance with the service contract and that the customer was charged an additional $50.00 on January 4, 2025, to change their phone number.
• We reviewed a screenshot of the service provider’s internal system, which demonstrates that the customer created an online portal to view their invoices and make changes to their account with the service provider on December 1, 2024, using the email address they provided in their complaint. This demonstrates that the customer had access to the information regarding their account and their invoices during the complaint period.
• The customer provided a flight itinerary for review, which demonstrated that the customer did travel outside of Canada between December 26, 2024, and February 3, 2025. However, we note that the results of the investigation into the customer’s complaint will deal specifically with whether the service provider followed its normal authentication process to gain consent from the customer to process the phone number change.
• As a result, we find that the service provider met its obligations in following its normal authentication policy by requesting the customer’s date of birth, driver’s licence number, and billing address, prior to processing the phone number change.