{"id":5998,"date":"2019-01-22T22:50:27","date_gmt":"2019-01-23T02:50:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=5998"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:52:28","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:52:28","slug":"lawsuit-against-att-and-t-mobile-round-out-a-volatile-year-in-the-cryptocurrency-market-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/lawsuit-against-att-and-t-mobile-round-out-a-volatile-year-in-the-cryptocurrency-market-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Lawsuit Against AT&T and T-Mobile Round Out a Volatile Year in the Cryptocurrency Market"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Two major wireless\ncarriers, AT&T and T-Mobile were sued\nlast week<\/a> for failing to protect\ncustomer data and cryptocurrency accounts. The\nsuit<\/a> was brought by Silver\nMiller Law, a firm that has become a major player in the cryptocurrency arena\nafter securing several million-dollar judgments on behalf of digital asset\ninvestors. The\ncomplaint alleges<\/a> that both AT&T and\nT-Mobile \u201cpossessed flaws in their security systems\u201d that combined with\nimproperly trained employees allowed hackers to gain access to customer\nsmartphones through \u201cSIM swapping.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n

SIM swapping<\/a> is an identity-theft technique in which hackers first gather crucial data such as a customer\u2019s financial information, phone password, and answers to security questions. The data is then used to prove identity when hackers contact cell phone providers<\/a> and pretend that their phone\u2019s SIM card has been lost or damaged. As a result, hackers are able to transfer phone numbers<\/a> to SIM cards in their possession, which provides them with \u201ca very valuable method of hijacking other digital accounts\u201d belonging to that phone number.<\/p>\n\n\n

…even less sophisticated hackers have been able to take advantage of the security weaknesses of cell phone service providers to drain individual cryptocurrency accounts. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n

As\na result<\/a> of SIM swapping\nschemes, hackers have been able to gain access to and subsequently drain the\ncryptocurrency accounts of AT&T and T-Mobile customers. One\nAT&T customer<\/a> represented by Silver\nMiller Law was assured that the provider had \u201cbeefed up\u201d security after an\nunsuccessful hacking attempt on his account; however, a subsequent SIM swapping\nhack caused him to lose $621,000 in cryptocurrency. <\/p>\n\n\n

This is not the first\ntime that AT&T has been sued for allegedly failing to protect customer cryptocurrency\naccounts. A\nprevious complaint<\/a> against AT&T was\nfiled in August, 2017, and alleged that one customer, Michael Terpin, lost\napproximately $24 million in cryptocurrency due to \u201cAT&T\u2019s willing\ncooperation with the hacker, gross negligence, violation of its statutory\nduties, and failure to adhere to its commitments in its Privacy Policy.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n

The Terpin complaint further\nalleged<\/a> that AT&T\u2019s actions\nwere analogous to \u201ca hotel giving a thief with a fake ID a room key and a key\nto the room safe to steal jewelry in the safe from the rightful owner.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n

Terpin co-founded\nBitAngels<\/a>, \u201can angel group for\nbitcoin investors,\u201d in 2013 as well as a digital currency fund called\nBitAngels\/Dapps Fund. As a result, Terpin has been the target of multiple cell\nphone hacks<\/a> aimed at his\ncryptocurrency assets, including two in a seven-month period.  Terpin is seeking $24 million in compensatory\ndamages and an additional $200 million in punitive damages in his lawsuit\nagainst AT&T. <\/p>\n\n\n

Cryptocurrencies have\ngained immense popularity among investors over the past few years. The most prominent\ncryptocurrency, Bitcoin, has been particularly lucrative for early investors. Bitcoin\npeaked\nin value<\/a> in December 2017 when\nit neared $20,000. However, it has since dropped significantly, with some data\nindicating a 65\npercent loss<\/a> in value during 2018.\nAt least some of the decrease\nin value<\/a> can be attributed to\n\u201csell-offs across cryptocurrency markets\u201d prompted by numerous hacks on\ncryptocurrency exchanges. The Wall Street Journal reported\nin July<\/a> of this year that\n\u201crecent cyberattacks have hurt market sentiment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n

In\nSeptember<\/a>, Michael Novogratz, a former hedge fund manager and \u201cone of the\nmost outspoken advocates of cryptocurrencies on Wall Street,\u201d declared that\nBitcoin had hit its rock bottom value at around $6,419.03 and was due for a\nrebound. So far, no such upswing has occurred. Bitcoin value has held\nsteady<\/a> around $6,000 for\nmonths now. However, several experts agree that this price stability will not\nlast and that the last few months have been the \u201ccalm\nbefore the storm<\/a>.\u201d Additionally, some have\npredicted<\/a> that the cryptocurrency\nmarket will \u201cexplode\u201d in 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n

Whether or not bitcoin will experience a resurgence in value is yet to be seen. However, 2018 has definitively shown that vulnerability to hacking is the major flaw of the overall cryptocurrency market. Investors have shown hesitation<\/a> and worry over \u201cfraud and lax regulation of the industry\u201d in the wake of repeated cyberattacks on cryptocurrency exchanges. However, even less sophisticated hackers have been able to take advantage of the security weaknesses of cell phone service providers to drain individual cryptocurrency accounts. Until security is improved at both levels, investment in cryptocurrencies may not be worth the potential reward. <\/p>\n\n\n

Sam Taylor, 12 November 2018<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two major wireless carriers, AT&T and T-Mobile were sued last week for failing to protect customer data and cryptocurrency accounts. The suit was brought by Silver Miller Law, a firm that has become a major player in the cryptocurrency arena after securing several million-dollar judgments on behalf of digital asset investors. The complaint alleges that …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5999,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5998"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5998"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5998\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6877,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5998\/revisions\/6877"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5999"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}