N.J. Plaintiff Sues AT&T, Store for Swiped Identity During Phone Setup
AT&T and TS Mobility’s “deceptive trade practices” and "failure to supervise" their employees have deceived customers in violation of New Jersey law, said a Dec. 1 negligence class action in Bergen County Superior Court, removed Wednesday to U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark (docket 2:24-cv-00174).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
New Jersey resident Tyler Franco alleges his personally identifiable information was compromised after he bought a phone plan through an AT&T employee working at TS Mobility in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. He also alleges the amount of the bill for the plan sold to him by the AT&T employee “was not what was promised to him at the time of purchase,” the complaint said. In addition to suing AT&T and its authorized retailer, Franco is suing TS Mobility owners Ricky Singh, Kalsi Singh and Dipa Singh and employees Malik Ahmed and Tami Shurtz, plus Does 1-10.
On March 11, Franco’s father went to TS Mobility to switch mobile phone plans from Verizon to AT&T, said the complaint. An employee offered the elder Franco a FirstNet plan for $85 per month, including a new phone, Apple Watch and iPad, said the complaint. After learning of the deal, Tyler went to the store on or about March 13 to inquire about the same offer his father had received.
A TS Mobility employee told him the deal his father secured was a “one day offer,” said the complaint. Tyler informed the employee then he was no longer interested in switching mobile plans, it said. The employee then “retracted his statement” and told Tyler he could offer him the same deal he had offered his father for the “same price of about $85 per month,” the complaint said. Tyler agreed to switch plans and begin the application process, it said.
Store employees helped Franco with setup and asked him to enter his name, address, date of birth and Social Security number; they also scanned his driver’s license into a mobile device “several times,” the complaint said. They told Franco setup would take an hour and that he could leave the phone at the store to complete the process so he could continue with his day, the complaint said.
Franco left the phone with the employees and discovered when he returned that the defendants had signed him up for DirecTV, despite his previous instruction that he didn’t want to be signed up for the service, the complaint said. Employees told him the plan was free for 14 days and if he wanted to cancel, he would just have to call or text the employee to do so, it said. Franco texted the employee March 26 requesting cancellation of the DirecTV plan, it said.
On March 29, Franco was charged for the DirecTV plan, and when he contacted the store employee about the cancellation, the person “refused to correct the issue,” saying a cancellation would have to come from AT&T, the complaint said. When Franco got home, he discovered his phone had been deactivated. He called the employee, and then the phone was activated and “seemed to work satisfactorily,” the complaint said. The following day, Franco couldn’t access his new phone account online, it said.
Again, Franco contacted the TS Mobility employee, who told him it was “standard” that it could take a few days for the account to update, the complaint said. A few days later, Franco’s phone “stopped working,” it said. He was told the issue would be resolved “soon,” it said. Franco's first phone bill from AT&T was for $331.51, it said. After several conversations about unexpected bill charges, the employee stopped responding to Franco, the complaint said.
When Franco attempted to file his annual income taxes April 18, his tax return was rejected “for being a duplicate,” said the complaint. An account from Plainsboro, New Jersey, had already filed a tax return with his information, it said. Franco filed a police report documenting identity theft April 21 and froze all of his financial accounts, it said.
Around that time, Franco found “numerous hits on his checking account,” which he later learned from discussions with a regional manager were for a $17 per device insurance charge the store charged to his account, the complaint said. Franco hadn’t been told of the insurance charges when he signed up for the plan, it said.
After filing the police report, Franco learned that the TS Mobility employee stole merchandise from the store, along with Franco's trade-in phone, valued at $7,560, the complaint said. As a result of the theft, Franco’s phone wasn’t traded in for credit and his phone bill was never applied the associated credit. Store owners offered Franco compensation of $7,500 “for the stolen devices and a vacation of Plaintiff’s choosing for two people,” the complaint said.
Franco subsequently discovered that employees of AT&T and TS Mobility were “using his information to open mobile accounts and service packages,” the complaint said. He also learned “upon information and belief” that the employees who “wrongfully acquired” his data had also done so at another TS Mobility location, it said. “Rather than terminate these employees,” the defendants “transferred said employees to another store,” it said.
Franco brings claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent supervision/retention; and misrepresentation. He seeks restitution of all wrongful discounts not provided to him and class members; actual, exemplary and treble damages; pre-judgment interest; and attorney’s fees and legal costs.