BlackBerry shutdown: Are networks avoiding lawsuits?

If you are a BlackBerry user you’re probably quite aware of the BlackBerry Crash that crippled millions of phones across Europe, Africa and the Middle East. For three whole days BlackBerry Internet Service died and many people were out of touch with their emails and their sacred BBM.

As an iPhone user I chuckled away at the poor misfortune of the BlackBerry user (as one is wont to do at such troubling times), but as reality set in (after the second day) I began to ask myself about the economic repercussions of the crash. Many of the business owners I know use their BlackBerry as their connection with the real world.

It’s not just about phone-calls and text-messaging. BlackBerrys are sold on their strong ability to handle email too and with the fixed cost pricing. Many people have their BlackBerry as their only email connection to the world — literally running their business from the phone. Simply consider the number of One-Man-Bands and entrepreneurs who solely rely on BlackBerry for their business to work.

And so to my amazement I heard on Thursday and Friday that cellular networks in South Africa were compensating their users for the three days of internetlessness. Call me a conspiracy-theorist, but I sense a snake in the grass — my experience has been that network providers in this country never do anything “just because they’re nice”. Just try to cancel your cellphone contract early, and see how “nice” they treat you.

So why would the Networks be so quick to compensate BlackBerry users? May I offer a theory?

On 1 April 2011, the Consumer Protection Act came into force. I am no lawyer, but my understanding is that everyone in the Supplier Chain is responsible for delivering on promises. If BlackBerry promises 24/7/365 connection at only R69/month, then the Networks are as responsible for delivering on the promise.

I have a suspicion that when the BlackBerry Crash of 2011 happened (as I have now dubbed the incident), there were urgent boardroom meetings and late night discussions with legal teams to discuss the implications — imagine a barrage of small business owners suing the networks for loss of income due to the Crash.

So I believe the “niceness” of the networks was a simple strategy to get you to forfeit your rights to sue for compensation. The legal basis is simple: By accepting their offered compensation (20 minutes free airtime, for example) you have accepted their acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and “settled” your disagreement.

The fact that you did this unawares, and the fact that it was forced on you (in a class-action-suit-settlement kind of way) has no bearing, because ignorantia legis neminem excust (ignorance before the law is no excuse).

Of course I may be completely wrong (I have no legal background) but could I be that far off the mark?