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. On October 17, 2019, Mr. Shapiro filed a lawsuit against AT&T in US federal court.
8/18/21 Update The Court ordered the Defense AT&T to repond to Plaintiff Seth Shapiro on or before 21 days after the Fourth Amended Complaint was filed.
Estimated deadline is August 27,2021. 8/6/21 Update Plaintiff Seth Shapiro files Fourth Amended Civil Complaint
7/28/21 Update The Court grants AT&T’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action in the TAC for concealment with leave to amend.
6/2/21 Update Defendant AT&T files a motion to dismiss Count 6 of Plaintiff Seth Shapiro’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) for Concealment, because Mr. Shapiro has not alleged a duty to speak and because he has not plausibly alleged that he would have acted differently if AT&T had disclosed 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 parties' 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 was filed.
Status Update as of 10/17/19 Plaintiff filed the complaint.
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. 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.
The People of the State of California alleges that Nicholas Truglia knowingly accessed data, a computer, computer system, and computer network in order to commit fraud and steal identity and cash from multiple victims.
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.