**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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Mr. Shapiro claims AT&T employees took bribes from hackers and gave them control of his mobile account 4 times over the course of one year. Mr. Shapiro also claims that the hackers then used their control over his mobile account to take control of his personal and digital finance accounts and steal more than $1.9 million from him.
Mr. Terpin claims that AT&T allowed an illegal sim swap to occur after an imposter posing as Mr. Terpin obtained Mr. Terpin’s telephone number from an insider cooperating with the hacker without the AT&T store employee requiring him to present valid identification or to give Mr. Terpin’s required password.
Mr. Williams claims that AT&T employees gave hackers control over his mobile account and phone number through an unauthorized SIM swap, and because of that, the hackers were able to take control of his personal and financial accounts, steal his cryptocurrency, and destroy his business, all resulting in the loss of Mr. Williams’ $2 million investment.
Mr. James Chen claims that AT&T employees gave unauthorized access to hackers in a sim swap which allowed the hackers to steal $764,168.00 from his bank accounts. The hackers then created a new cryptocurrency account, purchased cryptocurrency using the stolen money for themselves.
Ms. McCants claims that AT&T agents were paid to override security measures on her mobile account and allowed an unauthorized user to access her confidential account information. The information accessed then lead to Ms. McCants attack.
Donations to StopSIMCrime are used to raise awareness by supporting this website, travel to present at events, help victims recover their money, and stop carriers from giving our service to criminals.
A portion of your donation may be used to provide funding for lawsuits against the carriers and criminals. Because the carriers’ Terms of Service do not allow for legal class actions, each victim must take action individually, which may benefit victim individual. For that reason, we are not able to get tax-exempt status. To be clear, your donation is not tax deductible. However, our intention is that our collective efforts through your support will compel the carriers to fix the problem.