October, 2021
|
StopSIMCrime Summit

Michael Terpin v AT&T

15/8/2018

AT&T gave hackers control of Michael Terpin’s mobile service then were able to steal $24M from him.

On August 15 2018, Terpin filed a $224M lawsuit against AT&T, for the $24M stolen and $200M in damages.

In this lawsuit, Terpin 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 steal from him.

8/15/18 Update Plaintiff filed a complaint.

Status Update as of 8/9/19 The first amended complaint was filed.

Status Update as of 3/16/20 The second amended complaint was filed.

Claims in
Michael Terpin v AT&T
Declaratory Relief: Unenforceability of AT&T Consumer Agreement as Unconscionable and Contrary to Public Policy

Declaratory relief refers to a court’s judgment stating the rights of parties without ordering any specific action or listing awards for damages. When a party is requesting a declaratory judgment, the party is seeking an official declaration regarding the status of the controversy in issue.

Misrepresentation

A misrepresentation is a false statement of a material fact made by one party which affects the other party's decision in agreeing to a contract. California Civil Code § 3294 allows a trial court jury to award punitive damages in a personal injury case. The plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s conduct amounted to malice, oppression, or fraud.

Negligent Hiring

Negligent hiring is a legal claim made against an employer. It is made by an individual (i.e., employee or customer) who is injured by an employee with a history reflecting similar incidents. The negligent hiring claim argues that the employer knew or should have known their history before hiring them.

Negligent Supervision and Training
  1. Negligent supervision claims are based upon an employer’s failure to reasonably control or monitor the actions of employees.
  2. Negligent training claims may arise when the employer fails to train or incorrectly trains an employee and the employee ’s actions injure another individual.
Unauthorized Disclosure of Customer Confidential Proprietary Information and Proprietary Network Information

The rules in 47 CFR Subpart U are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The purpose of the rules is to implement section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 222.

Violation of California Unfair Competition Law - Fraudulent Business Practice

The Unfair Competition Law of California, BPC § 17200, prohibits false advertising and illegal business practices. The law is also known as the state’s UCL. The law describes “unfair competition” as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, or false, deceptive, or misleading advertising. 

Violation of California’s Customer Records Act—Inadequate Security

California Civil Code §1798.80 et seq., known as the Customer Records Act (“CRA”), was enacted to “encourage businesses that own, license, or maintain personal information about Californians to provide reasonable security for that information.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5

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 Consumer Legal Remedies Act

The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq, declare unlawful several "methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer". Forbidden practices include misrepresenting the source of the good and services, representing reconditioned goods as new, advertising goods without having the expected demand in stock, representing a repair is needed when it is not, representing rebates that have hidden conditions, and misrepresenting the authority of a salesman to close a deal.

Violation of California Unfair Competition Law Unfair Business Practice

The Unfair Competition Law of California, BPC § 17200, prohibits false advertising and illegal business practices. The law is also known as the state’s UCL. The law describes “unfair competition” as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, or false, deceptive, or misleading advertising. 

Assisting Unlawful Access to Computer California Penal Code § 502 et seq

Unauthorized computer access and fraud laws is covered under California Penal Code Section 502. It's called the “Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act” and criminalizes the act of accessing a computer or computer network without permission when you have the intent to defraud, cause harm, or commit a crime. California Penal Code § 502 et seq

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
Breach of Implied Contracts In the Alternative to Claim for Breach of Express Contract

Contract Implied in Fact consists of obligations arising from a mutual agreement and intent to promise where the agreement and promise have not been expressed in words. Such contracts are implied from facts and circumstances showing a mutual intent to contract, and may arise by the conduct of the parties. A contract implied in fact is a true contract.

Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

An implied obligation that assumes that the parties to a contract will act in good faith and deal fairly with one another without breaking their word, using shifty means to avoid obligations, or denying what the other party obviously understood. Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Deceit by Concealment
  1. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1709, one who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.
  2. Cal. Civ. Code § 1710 identifies four kinds of fraud: intentional misrepresentation; concealment; false promise; and negligent misrepresentation.
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.