October, 2021
|
StopSIMCrime Summit

James Chen v AT&T

28/8/2020

**AT&T gave hackers control of James Chen's mobile service while he's abroad where he lost approximately $764,168. **

On June 25, 2020, Chen filed a lawsuit against AT&T, for the $764,168.00 stolen, attorneys fees and other incurred costs.

In this lawsuit, Chen claims that AT&T is responsible for the theft because the fraudulent SIM swap executed by AT&T at the request of hackers was the critical element needed for them to access his bank accounts and steal money from him.

Status Update as of 11/19/20 Rebecca Callahan is assigned to serve as the Panel Mediator in this case, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.

Status Update as of 08/28/20 Plaintiff filed the complaint

Claims in
James Chen v AT&T
Negligent Supervision and Entrustment

Negligent supervision and entrustment is a cause of action in United States tort law which arises where one party ("the entrustor") is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party ("the entrustee") with a dangerous instrumentality, and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrumentality. The cause of action most frequently arises where one person allows another to drive their automobile.

Violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

In 1986, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, was introduced to combat hacking, as an update to the first federal computer fraud statute. It has been updated many times over the years, most notably in 2008, to encompass a broad range of actions well beyond its original purpose. The CFAA forbids the intentional access to a device without permission or in excess of permission, but does not specify what "without authorisation" entails. It has been a weapon perfect for violence to usage against virtually any aspect of electronic operation with harsh punishment schemes and malleable clauses.

Violation of The Federal Communications Act
  1. Under 47 U.S. Code § 201, every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
  2. Under 47 U.S. Code § 222, it shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor; and, in accordance with the orders of the Commission, in cases where the Commission, after opportunity for hearing, finds such action necessary or desirable in the public interest, to establish physical connections with other carriers, to establish through routes and charges applicable thereto and the divisions of such charges, and to establish and provide facilities and regulations for operating such through routes.
Violation of California’s Constitutional Right to Privacy

A plaintiff alleging a violation of the California's constitutional right to privacy must establish three elements: (i) a legally protected privacy interest; (ii) a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances; and (iii) a conduct by the defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy.

Breach of Contract – Privacy Policy
  1. The Information Practices Act of 1977, (California Civil Code §1798) delineates an elaborate statutory scheme specifically designed to implement the privacy amendment.
  2. Under California Civil Code §§1670, any dispute arising from a construction contract with a public agency, which contract contains a provision that one party to the contract or one party's agent or employee shall decide any disputes arising under that contract, shall be resolved by submitting the dispute to independent arbitration, if mutually agreeable, otherwise by litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction.
  3. California Civil Code §§1668 finds void against policy of law those contracts which seek to exempt a party from responsibility for their own fraud
Violations of the New York Consumer Protection Act – N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349

This law makes deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business unlawful.

Negligence

Negligence is defined as a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct). 

Cases

See all Cases
Prev
|
Next

 Support us

Let’s make them stop! Make a donation for public service announcements, legal actions, and creating legislation that to make it impractical for the mobile carriers to continue to give your mobile service to criminals.