Chicago Bar-tender

T-Mobile sued for allegedly helping eavesdropper

A man is suing his former attorney and T-Mobile for intercepting his private communications.

According to the complaint, on various occassions over the last year, defendant Yevgeniy Vaysman "intercepted, copied and disseminated communications between plaintiff and other recipients that originated through electronic communications using the facilities of defendant T-Mobile." 

The unnamed plaintiff, going by A.N. Anymous, asserts that Vaysman distributed or threatened to distribute the communications for the purpose of causing emotional harm to plaintiff.  Plaintiff further asserts that Vaysman intended to disrupt the harmony and continuation of plaintiff's marriage and family.

T-Mobile, according to the complaint, "failed to maintain the security of [plaintiff's communications] permitting them to be disclosed to unauthorized third parties, in this case, defendant Vaysman."

Read the complaint after the jump.

For Tweets of recent legal filings and legal news, follow me on Twitter at jenfernicola.

10 8 09 Anonymous v Vaysman and T Mobile -



Recent Posts


Leave a comment


jack said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

There is actually more to this complaint than you indicate in your summary.

I was wondering how the individual defendant could get into cell phone communications, which presumably now are digital.

However, the gist of the complaint is that plaintiff's attorney somehow got into plaintiff's e-mail, which probably isn't that hard to do.

There is also a fairly detailed allegation of legal malpractice against the attorney, which also wasn't mentioned in your blurb.

But, as they say, the complaint speaks for itself.

jack said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

I should have mentioned that the really misleading thing was the use of "eavesdropping" in the headline, which provoked the question in my second paragraph, supra.

Jennifer Fernicola Ronay said:


Plaintiff says its criminal "eavesdropping" in par 7.

Eavesdropping is a word that everyone knows. You see the word and you know a private communication was intercepted.

Regardless of whether it's my cell phone or email, I too would point the finger at the individual eavesdropper as well as the service provider.

jack said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Paragraph 7 is a legal conclusion, and thus meaningless under Illinois practice.

However the technical question remains. If, in fact the individual defendant intercepted a digital voice communication, I would ask how he was technically able to do so.

However, in rereading the complaint, it isn't clearly factually alleged what he purloined, just that the defendant Verizon wireless is in the voice, e-mail, and text messaging business. I supposed which of the 3 is relevant here will be disclosed upon discovery.

jack said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

And to further clarify, in light of your comment, I wasn't quarreling with whether a breach of duty was alleged against either defendant, but with how the alleged tortious act occurred.

Leave a Comment?

Some HTML is permitted: a, strong, em

What your comment will look like:


what will you say?

Most Active Pages Right Now on Facebook