AT&T Moves for Arbitration in SIM Swap Case, Citing CSA Provision

AT&T moved the U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando to compel the SIM swap claims of plaintiff Al Weiss to arbitration and to stay the case pending the completion of arbitration, said its motion to compel Monday (docket 6:23-cv-00120).

Weiss’ January complaint (see 2301250030) alleges an unknown, unauthorized person obtained control of his cellphone number sometime before June 23 via a SIM change that he didn’t authorize. After obtaining control of Weiss’ wireless number, the hacker accessed his cryptocurrency accounts and stole “hundreds of thousands of dollars of cryptocurrency assets,” said the complaint.

The plaintiff asserted six claims against AT&T: declaratory judgment as to arbitrability of dispute; declaratory judgment as to the unenforceability of the consumer service agreement; violation of the Federal Communications Act; negligence; negligent training and supervision; and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Weiss, an AT&T wireless customer since 2011, made changes and updates to his account in April 2019, when he “electronically accepted” the carrier’s then-existing wireless customer agreement (WCA) and retail installment agreement, the motion said. Each agreement contained arbitration provisions “substantively identical to the arbitration provision in the operative CSA,” it said.

In 2021, AT&T replaced the WCA, which covered wireless service, with the CSA, which “streamlined and combined agreements governing multiple AT&T services,” including wireless, into one agreement. Weiss received notice in writing of the update on three occasions from March to April 2021, in an email and billing statements, the company said. The notices “conspicuously stated” AT&T was updating the arbitration provision and that, by continuing to use AT&T’s service after May 5, Weiss “accepted the terms of the CSA.”

The arbitration provision from the CSA says AT&T and the customer agree to arbitrate all disputes and claims between them, “except for claims arising from bodily injury or death.” Among the “broadly interpreted” arbitration provision are claims on “any aspect of the relationship between us, whether based in contract, tort, fraud, misrepresentation, or any other statutory or common-law legal theory"; claims that arose before the agreement, including claims on advertising; claims for mental or emotion distress; and class action litigation.

Weiss’ statutory and common law claims that a hacker stole cryptocurrency from him after transferring his wireless number to another wireless device “arise out of and relate to the wireless telephone service AT&T provides” and “therefore fall squarely within the CSA’s arbitration provision,” said the motion. Because Weiss’ claims arose from his status as an AT&T customer, and that relationship is controlled by the CSA, “his claims against AT&T are subject to the arbitration provision in the CSA.”