A Canadian woman sued the telephone company for SIM swap scams in 2021 over theft of $531,000 worth of Bitcoin. The victim, a pharmacy manager, claims that the lost Bitcoin, now worth around $1.8 million, was stolen after a mobile phone store employee provided her personal information to the hackers.
Victim Raelene Vandenbosch sued Rogers Communications and Match Transact Inc. in three states, claiming that the loss she lost in the SIM swap scam was due to employees at the phone kiosk owned by the match.
Currently, the British Columbia Supreme Court (BC) has held that the matter will be resolved outside the courtroom by private arbitration.
Canadian women lose BTC in SIM swap scam
She approached Rogers about the situation she first discovered, according to a court filing by a Canadian. A Canadian woman said she was offered a refund for a month’s service worth around $95.
Vandenbosch then filed lawsuits in Ontario, Quebec and BC to retrieve more. Vandenbosch said the funds were stolen after a hacker pretended to be a Rogers technician and convinced employees of a match-owned mobile store in Montreal to share a computer screen.
A Canadian native said the action allowed hackers to access their account information, despite the fact that they were in BC at the time. The hacker then downloaded all his account information to the SIM card he owned. After the act, the hackers allegedly hijacked her account, locked her, and stole Bitcoin in the process. Vandenbosch sues for negligence, breach of privacy and breach of contract.
Canadians are also seeking to recover the amount that Bitcoin had at the time of entry for theft and other damages and guilt.
In response, Rogers and Match have filed responses in court, with none of which granted or denied the claim. Instead, they argued that the matter could be resolved through arbitration rather than through court. Vandenbosch also signed an arbitration agreement with Rogers as part of his mobile phone plan.
The decision of BC Supreme Court Judge Anita Chan expects the case to go to arbitration except that the judge seeks public recognition of the misconduct awarded by the judge because it is in the public interest.
The judge did not award the facts of the case in her decision. As a result, if Vandenbosch continues to pursue lawsuits and one of the companies is forced to admit negligence, it means that she will not be repaid against the lost BTC.
A spokesman representing Rogers defends the company and its security records. The spokesman also highlighted the risks associated with digital assets. “As fraudsters use constantly evolving technologies to leverage consumers throughout the wireless industry, they will continue to strengthen their security measures to protect customers from fraudulent activities,” the spokesman said.
Vanden Bosch arbitration ruling
In their first submission, the Canadian allegedly stole more than 12 BTC of stealing, hackers accessing crypto accounts on ledgers and Shake Pay. Stolen Bitcoin is worth more than $1.8 million at the time of today’s price.
She condemns the match for negligence and privacy violations for failing to protect her information. She also argues that Rogers failed to protect privacy by kiosk workers having access to too much personal information and not requiring verification questions.
Meanwhile, Canadian natives argue that there is no need to go through arbitration due to the amendments made by the BC government to its Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act in March.
The government has amended that it imposes laws on customers against mobile phone companies, claiming that forced arbitration hurts users. Vandenbosch said these new laws should be applied retroactively to her case, but Judge Chang said the rules were not intended to be retroactive.
“The ban applies to new disputes that came into effect on the Royal Ascent in Building 4 on March 31, 2025 and began after the Royal Ascent date,” a spokesman for the BC Attorney General said. “This means that if the supplier has an existing agreement with an arbitration clause, the parties will not be arbitrated if the parties are not yet in arbitration.”
Discover more from Earlybirds Invest
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
