Defendant Denies SIM Swap Transaction Originated From Its Store
Plaintiff William Rose’s transaction associated with an alleged SIM swap wasn't from the defendant’s store, said Cellular Touch Wireless in a Monday response (docket 2:23-cv-22) to a negligence complaint filed last month in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Fort Myers.
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 defendant, an authorized Metro by T-Mobile dealer, “is without knowledge of, and therefore denies, that Metro by T-Mobile is the telecom provider through whom Plaintiff received his monthly cellphone service,” said the response.
Cellular Touch included in the response exhibits allegedly showing Rose’s transaction record with SIM and International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) numbers and a time stamp that “did not come from Defendant’s inventory.” The time clock for the store’s employees showed both clocked out at about 8:30 p.m. on the date of the transaction, while the time stamp on the transaction showed 21:31 in the Central time zone, which would have been 10:31 p.m. in the Eastern time zone, “two hours after the employees had closed the store,” it said. The store’s alarm was armed at 8:34 p.m. Eastern time, it said.
Defendant “John Doe” didn't cause any of Rose’s alleged damages, and he's not liable for actions alleged in the complaint, said the response. Plaintiff had "unclean hands" and his losses were caused “at least in part, by his own negligence in giving his account PIN to a third party and failing to secure his bitcoin account,” it said.
The alleged losses were also caused, “at least in part, by third-party T-Mobile against whom Plaintiff is already pursing an action in arbitration,” said the response. Cellular Touch requested that judgment be entered in its favor on all counts and that Rose be ordered to pay its reasonable costs and fees related to the action.
Rose, of Mansfield, Massachusetts, alleged in his Jan. 11 complaint that T-Mobile’s “intentional participation” in a SIM card swap scheme, or its “recklessness and gross negligence” in failing to adequately protect employee credentials and a customer’s personal identifying information, led him to lose $280,000 worth of cryptocurrency due to identity theft.
The plaintiff alleged a representative of Cellular Touch bypassed Metro by T-Mobile’s security protocols and transferred to an unauthorized person Rose’s cellular phone number after disconnecting the number from Rose’s phone’s SIM card. The unauthorized person then connected the phone number to a SIM card under his or her control, the complaint alleged.
The complaint alleges the defendant was aware its security systems and internal software platform contained “significant holes and weaknesses” that allowed unchecked security bypasses and allowed unauthorized actors to enter the system and gain control of customer accounts and information,” but it didn’t take adequate actions to address them.
Over the past three years, plaintiff’s counsel, Silver Miller, has represented nearly 300 victims of unauthorized SIM swapping across the country whose individual cryptocurrency losses have ranged between $3,000 and $12.5 million, the complaint said.