Mr. Shapiro claims AT&T employees took bribes from hackers and gave them control of his mobile Account Four times over 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.
02/08/2022 Update Plaintiff requested for the SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY: from Christopher Grivakes to Jennie Lee Andeson.
01/24/2022 Update For the reasons set forth above, the undue delay, prejudice to Defendants, and futility factors weigh against granting Plaintiff leave to amend to file the proposed Fifth Amended Complaint to assert claims for intentional and negligent misrepresentation. The Court **DENIES **Plaintiff’s Motion to File Fifth Amended Complaint.
11/15/2021 Update Shapiro requests that the Court grant his motion to file the proposed amended Complaint adding counts for intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation.
** 8/18/21 Update** The Court ordered the Defense AT&T to respond to Plaintiff Seth Shapiro on or before 21 days after the Fourth Amended Complaint got Filed. The estimated deadline is August 27, 2021.
8/6/21 Update Plaintiff Seth Shapiro files Fourth Amended Civil Complaint
6/2/21 Update Defendant AT&T Files a motion to dismiss Count 6 of Plaintiff Seth Shapiro’s Third Amended Complaint because Mr. Shapiro did not allege a duty to speak and because he did not plausibly allege that he would have acted differently if AT&T disclose the limits of its security.
4/5/21 Update Plaintiff Seth Shapiro has filed their third amended complaint.
2/5/21 Update Judge Marshall ordered that Plaintiff Seth Shapiro's deadline to file a Third Amended Complaint is consistent with the party's stipulation is February 23, 2021. Defendant AT&T's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is March 19, 2021.
Status Update as of 5/29/20 Plaintiff Seth Shapiro filed a first amended complaint.
Status Update as of 1/20/21 The second amended complaint got filed.
Status Update as of 10/17/19 Plaintiff filed the complaint.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Michael Pierre claims that Coinbase was grossly negligent of its promise to protect and secure its customers' cryptocurrencies from cyberattacks. Mr. Pierre further claims that Coinbase dropped the ball on a series of anti-cyber attack/anti-hack precautions mandated by federal and state laws, rules, and regulations for cryptocurrency exchanges like Coinbase.
Mr. Etheridge alleges that hackers fraudulently SIM swapped his mobile number and stole 159.8 Ethereum tokens from him.
Mr. Kevin Frye claims that T-Mobile employees allowed hackers to steal his phone number through SIM swap. Mr. Frye lost $87,000 worth of BTC from his Coinbase account apart from the $1,536 was withdrawn from his Wells Fargo account.
The People of the United States alleges James O' Connor between March and May 2019. Defendant did participate in a scheme to use SIM swap to steal approximately $784,000 worth of Cryptocurrency from a Manhattan-based cryptocurrency company.
Plaintiff Boyd Egan used a fake driver's license to steal the identity of his victim and used it to request a SIM Swap in a mobile carrier's retail store. He also used the same fake driver's license to personally withdraw funds from his victims' banks with the help of SMS authentication using the victim's number that he fraudulently SIM swapped.
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.