Crypto law Firm Harrison to Help SIM Swapping Victims Sue AT&T and T-Mobile
November 9, 2018 | Back to News
Victims Sue AT&T And T-Mobile Over SIM Swap Hacking Cases
A crypto-focused law firm of the United States, Harrison, has filed arbitration claims against AT&T and T-Mobile on behalf of victims of SIM swapping hacking cases that led the victims to lose their cryptocurrencies.
The company will initiate the court action to retrieve the funds that were lost because these crimes are increasingly getting common. According to Harrison, these telecom companies are leaving holes in their security protocols and failing to train and monitor their employees.
In many cases, telephone providers have, in fact, assisted the thieves while they stole the phone number of people and let them access financial records and account information from the victims. Because of this, Harrison is accusing the companies of being complicit with the issue.
In its press release, which was published today, November 9, Harrison affirms that one its clients, which was also an AT&T customer, had over $621,000 USD in cryptos stolen via a SIM swap attack. The company also affirms that AT&T assured the client that his security had been increased after the attack but he lost the money anyway.
Two other customers from T-Mobile have lost around $400,000 and $250,000 USD with the attack which was, once again, “permitted” by the telecom.
SIM Swap Services Allow These Attacks
While the SIM swapping services exist for good reasons like helping the clients when their SIM card is damaged or they need to change providers, it can also allow criminals to manipulate telecom companies into giving them the number of other clients which will allow them to access the calls, messages and notifications of other people.
The process, according to Harrison, is very easy to do and you can do it with a single persuasive plea for assistance or impersonating the victim.
This type of crime is on the rise lately and has risen considerably in 2018, mostly to steal cryptocurrencies because they are harder to track and most of them do not offer options for charge backs.
