In an age where technology is meant to simplify our lives, it's a harsh reality when it does the opposite, especially during personal tragedy.

The recent findings against Telstra, one of Australia's largest telecommunications companies, have highlighted a significant issue within the industry:

The lack of adequate protections for bereaved families dealing with the aftermath of a loved one's death.


Jenny Moncur's heart-wrenching story of being 'unnecessarily harassed' by Telstra for nearly a decade after her husband's death has brought to light a major gap in regulations.

Despite her persistent efforts to stop the company from sending communications regarding her late husband's mobile phone account, her pleas fell on deaf ears.


The emotional toll of being reminded of her loss through insensitive emails and requests to speak with her deceased husband cannot be overstated.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) investigated Telstra's conduct and found it caused 'considerable anguish for many bereaved families.'

The regulator identified significant shortcomings in Telstra's customer management processes, which allowed for prolonged communication even after the company had been notified of a customer's death.


However, the outcome of the investigation has left many, including Ms Moncur, disappointed.

Despite the clear emotional distress caused to grieving families, Telstra will not face any penalties.

The investigation concluded that Telstra's actions did not breach the Telecommunications Consumer Protections (TCP) Code.

The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) CEO, Carol Bennett, has called ACMA a 'toothless tiger,' unable to hold the industry accountable.

The lack of significant financial penalties for such distressing violations is concerning, and there are calls for the maximum penalty under the TCP code to be increased from its current cap of $250,000, deemed 'totally inadequate.'


The case of Jenny Moncur is not an isolated incident.

After she went public with her story, 20 other grieving families facing similar battles with Telstra contacted ABC.

This collective outcry prompted Telstra to issue an apology, set up a dedicated helpline for bereaved families, and update its bereavement processes.

Yet, the question remains: why did it take public exposure for the company to take action?

The industry is under pressure to enhance consumer protections under the TCP code, which is currently under review.


However, consumer groups such as CHOICE, Financial Counselling Australia, and the Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network have refused to participate in the review.

The Communications Alliance, the industry's peak body, has acknowledged the need to close the gap exposed by cases like Ms Moncur's.

The ongoing review of the TCP code is expected to address improvements to domestic and family violence protections, selling practices, and appropriate safeguards.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has stated that she is closely monitoring the TCP code review and is considering additional reforms to ensure the consumer safeguards framework remains fit for purpose.

For Jenny Moncur, a former paramedic who spent her career helping others, the ordeal with Telstra has spurred her to advocate for better protections for other families.
How do you think companies should be held accountable for distressing grieving families? Feel free to share your thoughts and opinions in the comments below.