I am very disappointed in the response I was given by Cricket Wireless. I have been victim to a scam I argue Cricket Wireless is partly responsible in. I was sold an iPhone XS on Facebook in Canada only to later realize that it was blacklisted by a US carrier named Cricket Wireless. A police investigation could not identify the seller who sold me the iPhone. The scammer succeeded in fooling me out of 750 CAD. Police have decided to return the phone to me. There is no dispute around the fact that I purchased the phone legally and in good faith. On top of that, the phone was not reported stolen or lost as you would think. Cricket Wireless blacklisted the phone for “First Party Never Pay” which is saying that a client ran off with the phone after signing a service contract to presumably start the scam I ended up being victim to. And what makes this scam very effective and low risk to the common criminal is that it is an industry standard to blacklist phones rather than take legal action in runaway cases that could clear the phone. I dove quite deep in all the details surrounding said scam. I actively participated in the police investigation and called multiple carriers to have them explain to me why it is so difficult to send a two-click blacklist removal request for LEGITIMATE REASONS. The sad reality is that carriers are silent partners to the scam by using the blacklist in a way it clearly was not designed for. Carriers should not need to use the blacklist against their own clients which is highly questionable at best. The blacklist is intended to offer protection at the consumer level. The blacklist is not intended to fill inadequacies of carriers to collect payments due. Many times, I heard carriers quote this one very strict rule that defies logic: only the original owner can request removal from the blacklist. I wonder how accurate they quote the rule and wonder why the rule does not apply the other way around such that only the original owner can request an addition to the blacklist. Is the original owner description one of convenience? The problem with carriers giving themselves ownership power one way, and not the other is a cop out and you know it. The phone you decided to block was abandoned by the “original owner” for quick cash. The person who swindled you is laughing while the victim cries hopelessly. Keep your earplugs on!
Already have an account? Login
Login to the community
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.