DirecTV Complaint Seeks to Halt Ongoing ‘Imposter Fraud Scheme’
DirecTV named 10 defendants, plus 10 John Does and 10 “XYZ” companies, in a complaint Tuesday (docket 6:22-cv-00423) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Tyler that it said “seeks to terminate” an ongoing “imposter fraud scheme” uncovered after “a months-long investigation.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The defendants and their co-conspirators “are perpetrators of an unlawful scheme to enrich themselves” by impersonating DirecTV telemarketers, alleged the complaint. The culprits typically contact existing or potential DirecTV customers “to offer them nonexistent free or significantly discounted” services or products, and then they take the consumer’s money, usually in the form of prepaid gift cards that are subsequently laundered, it said.
The criminal actions leave consumers “confused” and “angry,” and without the promised free or discounted services or products, harming consumers and damaging DirecTV’s 30-year reputation, said the complaint. The fraudsters identify actual and potential DirecTV customers and consumers who may be in the market for pay-TV services. They contact consumers by text message or VoIP, enabling them to manipulate their caller IDs to read DirecTV, it said.
The promotional offers typically are for 50% off DirecTV services for terms between six and 24 months, often with free premium channels thrown in to sweeten the pot, said the complaint. The fraudsters tell consumers that the promotion is in partnership with another company, often eBay, and “to reap the benefits of the dramatic discount, consumers will need to prepay the discounted amount in gift cards issued by the promotion partner,” it said. The victimized consumer then buys gift cards, calls the number provided by the fraudster, which is answered as DirecTV, and provides the gift card information, it said: “The fraudster immediately drains the card of the funds, and the consumer never receives the promised promotions.”
Unlike many fraudsters who meet and share information and resources on the dark web, “those engaged in imposter fraud scams may collect customer information on the dark web, but they connect and do business in Facebook groups, LinkedIn chats, and on employment sites such as Upwork,” alleged the complaint. “They talk openly about needing a script, a gift card launderer, lists of customer information, and employees to run their scams, which they call ‘campaigns.’”
Imposter fraud “in the modern e-commerce world” has taken “a sizable leap” in the past several years, said the complaint. “There is no industry or government agency, and virtually no large, well-known company, which has not been the target of imposter fraud,” it said.
The imposter fraud scheme causes “substantial harm” to DirecTV and its customers, said the complaint. Legitimate customers who are targeted by the fraudsters “are distressed” and blame DirecTV, it said. DirecTV is also being forced to defend lawsuits, including Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims, based not on its own acts, but on the fraudsters’ “false advertising, impersonation, and other unlawful acts,” it said.
DirecTV uses undercover investigators to respond to voicemails left on consumers’ cellphones or landlines, said the complaint. After contacting the imposters, one investigator provided information for a “dummy account” set up to catch fraudsters, it said. The investigator was put on hold, his phone number was spoofed, and the criminals accessed the dummy account using the information they had collected, it said.
The complaint levies 18 allegations, including trademark infringement, unjust enrichment and common law fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation. It seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, including $2 million for the trademark infractions alone, plus “a preliminary and, thereafter, permanent injunction” barring any additional unlawful activity.