April, 2022
StopSIMCrime Summit

Jason Williams v AT&T


**AT&T employees allowed the hackers to steal Mr. William's money and his family’s personal and private information and threaten his family, and access his personal and digital finance accounts, steal his cryptocurrency, and destroy his business, all resulting in the loss of Mr. Williams’ $2 million investment. After Mr. Williams’ personal information was compromised, he also had to halt his lucrative cryptocurrency mining operations, in order to stop the hackers from stealing more. **

8/7/21 Update The Plaintiff's Counsel has served a subpoena to testify for Anexio Managed Services, LLC, a data center used by the defendant.

7/28/21 Update Defendant AT&T answers to the First Amended Complaint by denying ALL claims by Plaintiff Jason Williams.

3/25/20 Update Judge Terrence W. Boyle denies defendant AT&T's motion to dismiss. The Court concludes that plaintiff Jason Williams has standing and that he has alleged plausible claims for relief under all of his causes of action.

12/20/19 Update Defendant AT&T files a motion to discuss for the plaintiff's failure to state a claim.

10/25/19 Update Plaintiff Jason Williams filed the corrected complaint.

Status Update as of 10/24/19 Plaintiff Jason Williams filed the original complaint.

Claims in
Jason Williams v AT&T
North Carolina’s Anti-Hacking Statute

Under N.C.G.S. § 1-539.2A, any person whose property or person is injured by reason of a violation of G.S. 14-458 may sue for and recover any damages sustained and the costs of the suit. 

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 North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act

North Carolina enacted the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”), N.C. Gen. Stat § 75-1.1, to benefit consumers, but “its protections extend to businesses in appropriate situations.” Creating a private cause of action for consumers was the Act’s primary purpose. Also, the statute was enacted “to provide a civil means to maintain ethical standards of dealings between persons engaged in business and the consuming public” within North Carolina because “other legal remedies were inadequate or ineffective.” It applies to dealings between buyers and sellers at all levels of commerce.

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

Negligent supervision 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.


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.