Skip to main content
index page

ATT Putting Burdon of Proof On Me & Can't Meet Req. To Dispute Fraud

Submitted by IDVictim on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 18:37


Thanks in advance to anyone reading this. In early 2009 I was unemployed and living with family so I had no utilities in my name. Someone opened up an account with ATT under my name/social which I just found out about when checking my credit.

I called up ATT and told them about the fraud, filed a police report, and have bank statements to show my address. If I cannot fulfill their other proof of residency, I'm out of luck and responsible for the charges. ATT won't even accept tax returns as proof of residency!

Is this legal? Why is the burden of proof on the victim and not the corporation that created an account for them? If ATT wants to give accounts without ever requiring a signature, and only needing a social security # along with a name, then the burden of proof should be on them! If they don't like that, then they should require a signature.

Am I totally out of luck here? This is ruining my credit. I'm shocked the companies can get away with this, you would think this would fall under the 'cost of doing business' but these days businesses seem to get away risk free.

Please let me know what my course of action is if I only have 1 proof of residency that meets their requirements. Thanks!!