Google Begins Aggresively Using the Law To Stop Text Message Scams (bgr.com) 18
"Google is going to court to help put an end to, or at least limit, the prevalence of phishing scams over text message," reports BGR:
Google said it's bringing suit against Lighthouse, an impressively large operation that allegedly provides tools customers can buy to set up their own specialized phishing scams. All told, Google estimates that Lighthouse-affiliated scams in the U.S. have stolen anywhere between 12.7 million and 115 million credit cards. "Bad actors built Lighthouse as a phishing-as-a-service kit to generate and deploy massive SMS phishing attacks," Google notes. "These attacks exploit established brands like E-Z Pass to steal people's financial information."
Google's legal action is comprehensive and is intent on completely dismantling Lighthouse's operations. The search giant is bringing claims under RICO, the Lanham Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). RICO, which often comes up in movies and television shows, allows authorities to treat Lighthouse's phishing operation as a broad criminal enterprise as opposed to isolated scams. By using RICO, Google also expands the list of individuals who can be found liable, whether it be the people who started Lighthouse, the people who run it, or even unaffiliated customers who used the company's services. The Lanham Act, for those unaware, targets malicious actors who misappropriate well-known company trademarks in order to confuse consumers. This Lanham Act comes into play because many phishing scams masquerade as legitimate messages from companies like Amazon and FedEx. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, meanwhile, is relevant because scammers typically use stolen credentials to gain unauthorized access to financial systems, something the CFAA is designed to target...
The fact that Google is invoking all three of the acts above underscores how serious the company is about putting a stop to SMS-based scams. By using all three, Google's legal attack is more potent and also expands the range of available remedies to include civil damages and criminal penalties. In short, Google isn't merely trying to win a legal case; it's aiming to emphatically and permanently stop Lighthouse in its tracks.
Getting even more aggressive, Google says it's also working with the U.S. Congress to pass new anti-scammer legislation, and endorsed these three new bipartisan bills:
Google's legal action is comprehensive and is intent on completely dismantling Lighthouse's operations. The search giant is bringing claims under RICO, the Lanham Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). RICO, which often comes up in movies and television shows, allows authorities to treat Lighthouse's phishing operation as a broad criminal enterprise as opposed to isolated scams. By using RICO, Google also expands the list of individuals who can be found liable, whether it be the people who started Lighthouse, the people who run it, or even unaffiliated customers who used the company's services. The Lanham Act, for those unaware, targets malicious actors who misappropriate well-known company trademarks in order to confuse consumers. This Lanham Act comes into play because many phishing scams masquerade as legitimate messages from companies like Amazon and FedEx. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, meanwhile, is relevant because scammers typically use stolen credentials to gain unauthorized access to financial systems, something the CFAA is designed to target...
The fact that Google is invoking all three of the acts above underscores how serious the company is about putting a stop to SMS-based scams. By using all three, Google's legal attack is more potent and also expands the range of available remedies to include civil damages and criminal penalties. In short, Google isn't merely trying to win a legal case; it's aiming to emphatically and permanently stop Lighthouse in its tracks.
Getting even more aggressive, Google says it's also working with the U.S. Congress to pass new anti-scammer legislation, and endorsed these three new bipartisan bills:
- The Scam Compound Accountability and Mobilization (SCAM) Act "would develop a national strategy to counter scam compounds, enhance sanctions and support survivors of human trafficking within these compounds."
- The Foreign Robocall Elimination Act "would establish a taskforce focused on how to best block foreign-originated illegal robocalls before they ever reach American consumers."
- The Guarding Unprotected Aging Retirees from Deception (GUARD) Act "would empower state and local law enforcement by enabling them to utilize federal grant funding to investigate financial fraud and scams specifically targeting retirees. "
Thanks to Slashdot reader anderzole for sharing the article.
Setup a gofund google (Score:3)
and myself and others will financially support your effortsâ¦
Google can press charges now? (Score:2)
Silly me, I thought that was the governments job!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't say that anywhere.
It absolutely does say that—just not in the way you apparently think. RICO and the CFAA aren’t purely criminal statutes. Both include civil causes of action that private entities can invoke. That’s exactly what Google is doing here: filing a civil RICO and civil CFAA suit to go after Lighthouse’s infrastructure and operators.
No, Google isn’t pressing criminal charges. Yes, Google is using the civil provisions of those laws to bring enormous legal pressure to bear—complet
Re: (Score:3)
If they wanted to the Carriers could track where these come from. Say it comes from some India call center it then goes through a India Telecom then transfers to the international Carrier AT&T, then from AT&T to Verizon to a specific number. That person at the number asks Verizon where ti came from. Verizon says AT&T, not you ask AT&T they cay India Telecom, then you contact them. If they don't wish to answer (assuming legal warrant of some sort) then AT&T can be legally compelled to
Re: (Score:1)
All of the laws mentioned allow for civil actions to be brought by parties other than the government so long as you can show standing under the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Silly me, I thought that was the governments job!
I hear you, man. Under normal circumstances “pressing charges” is absolutely the government’s job. But in this case the article is (for once) not playing fast and loose with the terminology -- RICO and the CFAA both have civil provisions explicitly allowing private plaintiffs to sue.
That means Google doesn’t have to wait around for the DOJ. They can file a civil RICO action, drag Lighthouse into federal court, freeze infrastructure, claw back damages, and generally make life miserabl
Why not clean up your own act first (Score:1)
Maybe do something about all the scam advertisements on your (Google/Alphabet) platforms. No? Thought so.
Do you complain about casinos stopping muggers? (Score:2)
Maybe do something about all the scam advertisements on your (Google/Alphabet) platforms. No? Thought so.
Why first? That's pretty stupid. Yeah, Google allows some shady shit, but NOTHING compared to what organized crime syndicates have done. Also, the scam ads are a small fraction of their revenue. I think it's safe to say they're an oversight...they're making billions of dollars advertising for MAJOR pharmaceuticals, for example...the thousands of dollars they're receiving for fake boner pill ads don't really compare to the money they're making on Cialis and its competitors. The casino may be robbing me,
Why is this Google's business? (Score:2)
I understand it is a "good deed" on Google's part, but why is it involved? I didn't see where it is claiming damages or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't like the competition.
Re: (Score:3)
Because they have the data points to prove it, and the incentive to make it stop happening (reputation, profit margin, etc).
Re:Why is this Google's business? (Score:4, Informative)
I understand it is a "good deed" on Google's part, but why is it involved? I didn't see where it is claiming damages or anything.
Because the civil side of RICO, the CFAA, and the Lanham Act give Google standing even without direct monetary loss. Lighthouse’s phishing kits impersonate Google, misuse its trademarks, spoof its services, and target its users at scale—that’s textbook Lanham Act territory, and it's exactly the kind of systemic harm that the civil provisions in RICO and the CFAA were designed to combat. Google isn’t doing this out of charity; it’s defending its brand, its infrastructure, and the long-term viability of its messaging platforms. And thanks to the civil provisions in those laws, Google doesn’t have to wait around for the DOJ to get involved.
If Google's lawsuit moves forward, Lighthouse’s lawyers are going to have a very uncomfortable conversation with their clients. Civil RICO and CFAA both allow judges to issue ex parte asset-freeze orders, seize domains, force registrars and hosting providers to shut down infrastructure, and compel U.S. (and EU) intermediaries to turn over logs and identity records. Once the court grants early discovery, anyone even loosely involved—from resellers to developers to “affiliates”—can be subpoenaed, deposed, and pulled into joint-and-several liability. In practical terms, Lighthouse’s Western-reachable assets get seized, their infrastructure goes dark, their payment processors and crypto off-ramps get locked, and every employee or contractor who ever touched the operation suddenly needs their own lawyer. That’s the quiet part Google is saying out loud: this lawsuit isn’t symbolic—it’s a legal kill-switch.
Answer for "Why now, and why Google?" (Score:1)
Some Google exec's mother got scammed by a text message.