Should the loss of $23 million in cryptocurrency due to the theft of the SIM card, should not blame the telecommunications company?

Encrypted currency investor Michael Terpin sued US telecommunications giant AT&T for a preliminary victory.

In a court document released last Friday, Los Angeles federal judge Otis Wright II ruled that AT&T must respond to Terpin’s lawsuit because the hacker invaded his SIM card and stole millions of dollars in cryptocurrency.

Although AT&T asked the court to completely dismiss the lawsuit, the judge believed that the company should be responsible for Terpin’s allegations. Terpin stated that AT&T violated the Federal Communications Act, violated the contract, and had other violations.

• The latest evaluation of the blockchain by 11 national leaders and politicians, or the future global regulatory “wind vane”
• Director of the Institute of Financial Law of the Central University of Finance and Economics: the circumstance of digital currency issuance
• QKL123 market analysis | Change soon, Bitcoin explores $ 9,000 again? (0723)

Terpin requires $23.8 million in compensatory compensation and an additional $200 million in punitive damages.

The case was first filed in August 2018, and Terpin claimed that AT&T employees were involved in SIM card exchange fraud. In this type of scam, criminals pretend to be the victim's mobile phone number owner, convincing the telecom operator to allow them to use the SIM card.

It is said that this is the second time that Terpin has been attacked by AT&T's SIM card. He claims that he has explicitly told the company that his account is very risky and has improved his security level after the first incident.

In a court document filed on July 19, Judge Wright ruled that Terpin “accused AT&T to foresee a third-party criminal act”.

Terpin further advocated declaratory remedies on the grounds that some of the terms offered by AT&T were illegal.

The judge wrote in the document:

"He tried to declare AT&T's customer agreement to be unreasonable, in violation of public policy, and was unenforceable. Specifically, he opposed the exemption from AT&T's liability, which exempted AT&T's own negligence, third-party behavior. Or omissions, and damage or injury caused by the use of the equipment; the limitation of damages protects AT&T from certain forms of compensation; requires customers to compensate for claims arising from services provided by AT&T; and requires Terpin to arbitrate claims Arbitration clause."

Although the company sought to dismiss the case on the grounds that the timing of the lawsuit was not yet mature, Judge Wright stated that Terpin had fully filed the allegations and ruled out the possibility of rejection.

However, Terpin claimed that AT&T’s claim that he lost $24 million in cryptocurrency was questioned. The judge stated:

"According to the allegations of the indictment, Terpin claimed that AT&T assisted the hacker in completing the SIM card exchange, allowing the hacker to use Terpin's phone number. It allegedly caused Terpin to lose $24 million in cryptocurrency. However, Mr. Terpin did not state that the hacker was How to enter their cryptocurrency account does not indicate whether they sold Mr. Terpin's cryptocurrency and then transferred the funds, or whether they transferred the cryptocurrency to a cold wallet. Currently, the court can only guess that the hacker gets Terpin's phone number. How to cause the cryptocurrency to be stolen."

The claim was rejected and the plaintiff has the right to make changes within 21 days.

Terpin's lead attorney, Pierce O'Donnell, said:

"Wright Judge denied AT&T's bold attempt to prevent Michael from telling the jury that the operator ignored consumer privacy and completely ignored its legal obligation to prevent such SIM card exchanges and financial crimes. There is evidence that AT&T is more than once, and It was twice that allowed a hacker posing as Michael to use his SIM card."

Terpin himself said:

“I am very grateful to Judge Wright for allowing my case to continue. We must let AT&T take responsibility. If AT&T can use its efforts to suppress customers' attitudes and use it to reform its flawed security system, we will not be in court. ”

We will continue to update Blocking; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!