I think I am on to something...using small claims court

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 23 Dec 2012 Posts: 7

Ok, so I am a paralegal, and what I am about to state is for informational purposes only.

I sell on Craigslist all the time, and I constantly get the scammers using text messaging platforms to blast their scams such as "Hi, is your item still available, please contact me on email at [email protected]" or some such similar wording. They come from a short message service (i.e. not a full phone number, but a code like 200-12...).

I have found that if you type help or ? you will get a message from the service provider. In a recent experience, I found out who the service provider was, and due to confidentiality clause, I cannot name them, but can say the service provider was in the Los Angeles, CA area. I sued the service provider for "turning a blind eye" and allowing fraudsters to utilize the services for their 419 scams. I paid $18.00 for a small claims suit.

I sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal law that allows a minumum of $500 dollars for EACH and EVERY unsolicited SMS message or phone call. I only had one message from this fraudster. I settled the case for $1250.00, and have an agreement with this provider that they will immediately terminate any such account I identify in the future as a scammer without question.

This will effectively prevent any 419 scammer from using text messaging platforms that blast their messages en masse in hopes that someone is gullible enough to respond.

What do you think?

I have done this on Craigslist in the "autos for sale by owner" section, all the time by suing the actual companies who call trying to sell you advertising on their worthless site.

I think if more people did this, scams would go away.

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 2:18 pm

Moved here. You're the paralegal and in California, while I am neither. Regardless, an additional claim under Section 17538.41 of California's Business & Practices Code would probably help, too. However, in no way does this harm the scammer, other than losing one provider to send out their junk. It is the business that is out of money.

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:45 pm

^^I agree. The only one being hurt is the service provider.

Quote:

...have an agreement with this provider that they will immediately terminate any such account I identify in the future as a scammer without question.

I"m sorry, but I do find that hard to believe.

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:24 am

I feel this is akin to suing WU for allowing scammers to use their service for payments.

WU, Internet Providors, all provide a service that in 99% (?) of cases are used legitimately.

Suing them for a third parties use of their service does not affect the scammer in anyway, other than some slight inconvenience in changing service providor.

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 7:52 am

I am a paralegal too, and admire your approach Mystic. But, shooting a fish in a barrel will still leave the barrel and maybe some dead fish. Scammers always have other barrels and much, much more fish.

::nod to Capone::

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:29 am

Thanks, TheFae. And you are correct-Small claims is an effective tool but other than getting the service provider's attention, I don't think it will do a lot. the lad will just move on under another fake name and with a stolen cc number.

I also find it a little odd that any settlement agreement or release would bind an ISP to close a site on an individual's identification without more.

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 1:51 pm

Quote:

I also find it a little odd that any settlement agreement or release would bind an ISP to close a site on an individual's identification without more.

Agreed. It's one thing to agree to investigate any reports submitted or to agree to close when evidence is provided, but automatically closing based on a word would be opening the ISP to lawsuits from customers whose accounts were closed based on lack of evidence, and any good attorney would be expected to shoot a clause like this down.

*** BANNED *** Joined: 26 Jul 2012 Posts: 1116

Not a lawyer, but I am a tech business type.

mysicspirit25 wrote:

I sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal law that allows a minumum of $500 dollars for EACH and EVERY unsolicited SMS message or phone call. I only had one message from this fraudster. I settled the case for $1250.00, and have an agreement with this provider that they will immediately terminate any such account I identify in the future as a scammer without question.

Funny math there, I take it you were paid extra to not release the telecom's name publicly, while working in the termination agreement bit as an extra? OMG profits FTW LULZ.

Sounds like strong armed robbery to me and not something I would like to see the anti-fraud/anti-abuse movement in general associated with. While I have no problem slapping industry "ISP/telecom/hosts/domain registration providers/etc" idiots around when they put profit over business ethics, it sounds like strong armed theft using the legal system as your club. I would rather not be seen as a legal liability leech to be avoided by honest companies because you can suck the blood out a few dishonest companies. This almost seems like legal cash baiting. Legal, just as morally reprehensible, but legal.

That said though, I may not suggest this for baiters but if I could help a victim recover lost funds that way I would absolutely put a victim into information that could help them hold the telecom liable for the funds lost. Making the industry types realize that every victim is a liability, no problem in my personal book.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Quote:

This almost seems like legal cash baiting. Legal, just as morally reprehensible, but legal.

Yep.

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 23 Dec 2012 Posts: 7

I never thought of it as theft. The way I see it is these telecom companies (that let you "blast" 20,000 SMS messages in 10 seconds) should know that there are very few legitimate purposes for such marketing.

Yes, the company did pay me more to not release their name. They also agreed to immediately terminate any account that had the "is your item still avail...please email [email protected]" type messages that I bring to them in perpetuity.

I also bait telemarketers all the time too. I don't find it morally reprehensible to take the money from the companies who willfully violate the DNC lists.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Whatever floats your boat.

Still not anything that we do here.

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:04 am

I have read this to the point of pain. You are not hurting the scammers one iota. You are possibly hurting ITP just because you can . That is not now, nor ever have been the way this place works.Take the fight to the source, not the unwitting tool. If you can.But the other way may just be too easy. Evil or Very Mad

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:24 am

doc holliday wrote:

But the other way may just be too easy. Evil or Very Mad

And more profitable for the OP, but of course I'm, sure that wasn't at the front of her mind when she started the legal action Rolling Eyes

Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:30 pm

doc holliday wrote:

You are possibly hurting ITP just because you can .

Having worked as a paralegal and a member of Eater for quite a few years, I agree with doc holliday about hurting an ITP -- and this also seems to be falling in the area of "cash baiting" but with an ITP. I would leave it alone. Just my opinion.

If something is going to hurt or harm an ITP I would not touch it with a 10 ft pole. We want to put the "hurt" on scammers.

Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:03 am

mysicspirit25 wrote:

I paid $18.00 for a small claims suit.

you could have settled for those $18 and the threat of more to come if they don't comply.

pro bono publico and all

Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:51 am

I think this thread has run its course. OP hasn't logged in for days and we all agree it was a bad idea. Locking so we can get on with useful stuff instead.

I think I am on to something...using small claims court	View next topic View previous topic