Canadian woman drags service provider to court over 12 BTC SIM swap scam

A Canadian woman has sued a phone company over the theft of her Bitcoin worth $531,000 in 2021, in a SIM swap scam. The victim, a pharmacy manager, alleges that the lost Bitcoin, now worth roughly $1.8 million, was stolen after a cellphone store employee gave her personal information to a hacker.

The victim, Raelene Vandenbosch sued Rogers Communications and Match Transact Inc. in three provinces, alleging that the loss she suffered from the SIM swap scam was the fault of an employee of a phone kiosk owned by Match.

Now, the Supreme Court in British Columbia (B.C.) has ruled that the issue be resolved in private arbitration, outside a courtroom.

Canadian woman loses BTC in SIM swap scam

According to a court filing submitted by the Canadian, she approached Rogers about the situation when she first discovered it. The Canadian woman said she was offered a refund on one month’s service, worth about $95.

Vandenbosch then filed lawsuits in Ontario, Quebec, and B.C. to recoup more. Vandenbosch said the funds were stolen after a hacker pretending to be a technician from Rogers convinced a Match-owned mobile store employee in Montreal to share their computer screen.

The Canadian native said the action allowed the hacker to gain access to her account information, even though she was in B.C. at the time. The hacker then proceeded to download all her account information onto a SIM card that was in their possession. After the deed, the hacker then allegedly hijacked her account, locking her out and stealing her Bitcoin in the process. Vandenbosch is suing for negligence, breach of privacy, and breach of contract.

The Canadian is also seeking restoration of the amount that the Bitcoin was at the time of the theft and other damages and admission of guilt.

In response, Rogers and Match have filed a response in court, with none of them admitting or denying the allegations. Instead, they have argued that they could resolve the issue through arbitration rather than in a courtroom. Vandenbosch also signed an arbitration agreement with Rogers as part of her cellphone plan.

In a ruling by the B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anita Chan, the case is expected to go to arbitration, except for the part seeking a public admission of wrongdoing, which the judge has ruled can proceed because it is in the public interest.

The judge did not rule on the facts of the case in her decision. The result could mean that if Vandenbosch continues to pursue the suit and either company is forced to admit fault, then she does not get paid back for the lost BTC.

A spokesperson representing Rogers has defended the company and its security record. The spokesperson also highlighted the risk associated with digital assets. “As fraudsters use constantly evolving techniques to try and take advantage of consumers across the wireless industry, we continually strengthen our security measures to protect our customers against fraudulent activity,” the spokesperson said.

Vandenbosch contends arbitration ruling

In her initial filing, the Canadian said that the hacker allegedly gained access to her crypto accounts on Ledger and Shake Pay, stealing over 12 BTC, worth around $534,000 at the time. The stolen Bitcoin is now worth over $1.8 million as of today’s price.

She is accusing Match of negligence and breach of privacy for failing to protect her personal information. She also claims Rogers failed to protect her privacy by allowing kiosk workers access to too much personal information and failing to mandate verification questions.

Meanwhile, the Canadian native has argued that she should not be required to go through arbitration because of the amendments made by the B.C. government to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act in March.

The government amended the legislation to bar cell phone companies from imposing these agreements on customers, arguing that forced arbitration hurts users. Vandenbosch said that these new laws should be retroactively applied to her case, but Justice Chan disagreed, saying the rules are not meant to be retroactive.

“The prohibition came into force on Royal Assent of Bill 4 on March 31, 2025, and applies to new disputes that are launched after the date of Royal Assent,” a spokesperson from the B.C. Ministry of Attorney General said. “This means if a supplier had a pre-existing contract with an arbitration clause, the parties are no longer bound to arbitrate if they were not already in arbitration at the time.”

Source