April, 2022
StopSIMCrime Summit

Robert Ross v AT&T


**AT&T gave hackers control of Robert Ross's phone number and then stole $1,000,000 from him. **

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

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 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, the 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 is hereby set for September 30, 2021 09:30 AM before 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, adding new allegations, including a list of solutions AT&T could have implemented (but did not) to protect Mr. Ross, and also that AT&T is trying to profit from unauthorized SIM swaps through their ZenKey service, which markets a for-profit "Post-SIM swap solution" to financial services providers, rather than implementing a "Pre-SIM swap solution" to fix the source problem before an unauthorized SIM swap occurs.

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
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 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.

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. 


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). 


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.