Remember that bank that sent an email to an incorrect Google account? Well, Google locked the user out, basically treating the user as a criminal. A court ordered Google to do the deed, so I suppose it isn’t Google’s fault that a user is being treated as a criminal even though they didn’t do anything. Literally. They didn’t even respond to the sender, who must feel like a real idiot at this point. Or, if they don’t, they should.
As I’ve said in a previous post, I’ve received all manner of incorrect email, fax, and phone call. I still think it is nuts that someone can send an email to a wrong address, and a court would agree to lock down the users account until whatever time. It just doesn’t make sense. It was a mistake to send it, not receive it. I didn’t enter into any agreement with the bank that should I receive an incorrect email, they then can shutter my account until they feel confident I haven’t done anything with the data.
But, that sender did enter into a fiduciary duty to protect the identity and general data of the people in that document. Why punish the receiver who hasn’t shown [at least, to the point of the reports I've read] that they have done anything to capitalize on the booty.
Rocky Mountain Bank should be ashamed of this heavy handed tactic. Like a child throwing a tantrum, they make others pay for their mistake. They litigate? If I were a consumer of that bank, I’d find another bank. Not only do they send information off to the wrong address, but they send information that shouldn’t have been sent in the first place. To put icing on the cake, they sue for the identity of the recipient and a court finds cause to lock the account?
What is going on here?
Questions that I’ll probably never get answered… if the TRO [Temporary Restraining Order] named the person, then they have a TRO on record. Like credit history checks, no one cares what the situation was that provoked the TRO. You have to get in the door first to explain what happened. So, has this caused that person any problems? Probably not yet. Depends on if the TRO was assigned to a person, or to Google I would think. And expungement of a record does not really expunge the record.
Additional questions:
What kind of precedent does this set? A company can accidentally send data to an address and that allows for litigation to obtain the identity, shut the account, and put down a TRO? That much is obviously true as it just happened. Where is the Constitutional law attorney that can explain the justification for this?
Related posts:
You must log in to post a comment.