Robert Ross v AT&T


On October 26, 2018, Robert Ross was in his San Francisco home when he noticed his phone got no longer connected to the network, was automatically logged out of his Gmail, and saw a withdrawal request from his financial service provider. Within an hour his $1 million life savings were stolen.

01/28/2022 Update Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi Total Time in Court: 6 Hours.30 Minutes. Court Reporter: None.

01/20/2022 Update Total Time in Court: 5.5 hours. Court Reporter: Not reported.

1/12/2022 Update A Further Settlement Conference is hereby set for January 20, 2022, 09:00 AM-1:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. No further submissions are needed.

12/14/2021 Update MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice filed by Robert Ross.

12/13/2021 Update A pre-settlement conference call will hold on December 13, 2021. Time: 10 mins. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi will hold a minute entry for proceedings, a pre-settlement call will hold on December 13, 2021

12/08/2021 Update MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice filed by Robert Ross.

12/07/2021 Update Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 126 Motion to Substitute Attorney.

12/06/2021 Update MOTION to Substitute Attorney filed by Robert Ross.

10/05/2021 Update Motion Hearing set for 8/18/2022 2:00 PM in Oakland, Videoconference Only Before Judge Jon S. Tigar. This proceeding will hold in VIA zoom Webinar.

10/05/2021 Update Order of Rescheduling Order Deadlines, Judge Jon S. Tigar grants 121 stipulations a Pre-trial Videoconference is set Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before him.

10/01/2021 Update ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 98 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal on 10/1/2021.

09/28/2021 Update Before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. A Pre-Settlement Telephone Conference call with counsel only is set. The parties shall comply with Judge DeMarchi's Standing Order RE Settlement Conference. Deadlines for submission of SCSCS letters in advance of the conference.

09/24/2021 Update ORDER Vacating Settlement Conference Dates. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi.

8/26/21 Update Hearing on Joint Discovery Letter. The Court will decide if ZenKey, a joint project by 3 major carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, should be part of the discovery and is related to the case.

7/21/21 Update Hearing on Joint Discovery Letter is moved to August 26, 2021, via Zoom. The Discovery hearing will focus on whether or not Zenkey joint venture of the mobile carrier giants AT&T, T-Mobile & Verizon will be part of the legal case and the discovery.

7/9/21 Update A Settlement Conference Set on September 30, 2021, by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi.

1/29/21 Update One Touch Direct LLC and One Touch Direct-San Antonio LLC responded to the Ross v AT&T First Amended Complaint, effectively denying all allegations.

1/12/21 Update AT&T Mobility, LLC responded to the Ross v AT&T First Amended Complaint, effectively denying all allegations

12/21/20 Update Plaintiff Robert Ross filed his First Amended Complaint in Ross v AT&T.

5/14/2020 Update Judge Tigar ruled on Defendant AT&T's Motion to Dismiss in favor of Plaintiff Robert Ross.

12/6/2019 Update Defendant AT&T filed a Motion to Dismiss

Claims in
Robert Ross v AT&T
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’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.


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). 

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. 

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.
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.


See all Cases

 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.