Skip to main content

Feds sue AT&T over $16 million collected from fraudulent charges

att-corporate
Image used with permission by copyright holder

As mentioned on Bloomberg recently, the U.S. Department of Justice is pursuing a lawsuit against AT&T for collecting approximately $16 million from the United States government through reimbursements for a service offered for the deaf, but primarily being used by Internet scammers. For the last ten years, telecommunication companies have been required to provide an Internet-calling service that allows hearing impaired users to type messages through a computer and the message is relayed to the party on the other end of the phone line through an employee hired by the service provider. For calls that originate in the United States and that are made by hearing impaired users, the federal government reimburses a company like AT&T at a rate of $1.30 per minute.

The Justice Department is claiming that AT&T allowed the service to become overrun by scam artists operating outside the United States. They allegedly used the service to place anonymous calls when attempting to defraud U.S. companies with stolen credit cards or counterfeit money orders.

In addition, the government claims that AT&T has been collecting the $1.30 per minute rate on these overseas calls from the scammers. The Justice Department estimates that up to 95 percent of the calls didn’t fit the criteria of originating in the United States or being from an actual hearing impaired person.

In order to reduce the number of scammers using the service fraudulently, the FCC created a new requirement during 2008 that forced telecoms to collect names and mailing addresses of hearing impaired users to verify registration with the service. According to the account from the Justice Department, AT&T attempted to obtain verification through postcards sent to existing registered users, but was only able to verify 20 percent of the entire registered user base by September 2009.

Faced with the possibility that revenue collected from the federal government would drop drastically, AT&T management looked for another way to verify users under the guidelines provided by the FCC. According to the Justice Department, AT&T senior technical director Burt Bossi stated “We are expecting a serious decline in traffic because fraud will go to zero (at least temporarily) and we haven’t registered nearly enough customers to pick up the slack,” to other managers within the company at the time.

ATT-IP-RelayDuring October 2009, AT&T adopted a new computerized verification system called DASH that verified the user’s address only by checking to see if the address exists. For instance, a scammer operating out of Nigeria could hypothetically register any mailing address in the United States and AT&T would consider that user a verified, hearing impaired person. Subsequently, registrations spiked after the changes took place and the Justice Department claims that AT&T was aware of the sharp increase in scammers using the service. 

While AT&T could have logged the originating IP address of any user registering with the service to at least eliminate a portion of the scammers by country location, the company argues that “AT&T has followed the FCC’s rules for providing IP Relay services for disabled customers and for seeking reimbursement for those services,” in a statement issued to Ars Technica. A company representative went on to state “As the FCC is aware, it is always possible for an individual to misuse IP Relay services, just as someone can misuse the postal system or an email account, but FCC rules require that we complete all calls by customers who identify themselves as disabled.” 

The Justice Department is seeking triple damages from AT&T in regards to the collection of the $1.30 per minute fee for the fraudulent calls, basically returning the original $16 million to the American taxpayer plus an additional $32 million as punishment for exploiting the system meant to assist the hearing impaired. U.S. Attorney David J. Hickton stated “Taxpayers must not bear the cost of abuses of the Telecommunications Relay system. Those who misuse funds intended to benefit the hearing- and speech-impaired must be held accountable.”

Mike Flacy
By day, I'm the content and social media manager for High-Def Digest, Steve's Digicams and The CheckOut on Ben's Bargains…
The best Google Pixel 8a cases in 2024
A render of the Google Pixel 8a next to an official Google case.

Google's Pixel A range has been the darling of the midrange smartphone market for years now, and it's seemingly in no danger of being toppled from its throne any time soon. The latest entry is the Google Pixel 8a, and Google has been busy adding new features alongside the usual upgrades. As expected, the Pixel 8a has Google's Tensor G3 processor, a 64-megapixel main camera lens, and all the usual AI-powered camera features — but it's also the cheapest smartphone to include Gemini Nano, Google's groundbreaking AI model. If you're looking for a reasonably priced smartphone with a lot to offer, the Pixel 8a is worth keeping an eye on.

But AI can't stop physical damage from scratches, drops, and dirt, and what use is an advanced phone if it's broken by a fall onto a wooden floor or concrete sidewalk? A protective case is a must if you want your phone to stay safe from harm, and there are plenty to choose from, even for a device as new as the Pixel 8a. Here are some of the best Google Pixel 8a cases you can buy right now.

Read more
I don’t think Apple wants me to buy the new iPad Pro
Someone using the new M4 iPad Pro with a creator app.

There are days when I am proud of the things I create, and then there are days like today when I watch an Apple iPad Pro reveal event. Seeing what the new 2024 iPad Pro can do made me feel like the things I’ve creatively achieved are the equivalent of holding a piece of chalk in my clenched fist and scratching a stick figure onto a cave wall.

I simply would not get close to what it’s capable of, band there’s still a tiny, slightly mad part of me that really wants one of these spectacular new tablets, particularly as it’s still the only way I can get a personal must-have tablet feature. Except, if I also want all the kit with it, the top-spec iPad Pro model will definitely cost me more than $2,000, potentially even up to $3,000. Am I mad enough to spend that much on an iPad?
Go Pro or go home

Read more
Is the Google Pixel 8a waterproof?
A render of the Google Pixel 8a with its scree turned on. It's against a light blue background.

Google's Pixel A series is an oddball compared to other midrange phones. Besides some mediocre features that fit the price, the A series phones surprisingly share some other attributes with their more premium siblings.

The all-new Google Pixel 8a is alike in this regard and shares such things as the Tensor G3 chip, wireless charging, and seven years of software support from Google. It's also the first A-series Pixel to get a 120Hz display. But if you're wondering whether or not the Pixel 8a is waterproof, here's what you need to know.
Is the Google Pixel 8a waterproof?

Read more