High Court sought response from TRAI Center after Paytm took no action against phishing
New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court today asked for a response from the TRAI Telecommunications Center and regulator on the plea of the online payment platform Paytm alleging that telecommunications operators are not blocking those who defraud its customers through ” phishing “on various mobile networks.
A magistrate of Chief Justice DN Patel and Judge Prateek Jalan sent an opinion to the Ministry of Communication, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the main mobile service providers, including Airtel, Reliance Jio, MTNL, BSNL and Vodafone, to request their position on the plea before the next hearing date of June 24.
Additional Solicitor General Maninder Acharya and permanent central government lawyer Anurag Ahluwalia accepted the notice on behalf of the department.
The order came on the argument of One97 Communications Ltd, which manages Paytm, claiming that millions of its customers have been defrauded by phishing activities on the mobile networks and that the telecommunications companies have not prevented these operations ” have caused financial and reputation “” losses to him for which he has claimed damages of Rs 100 crore from them.
Phishing is a cybercrime where people are contacted by email, phone calls or SMS by someone pretending to be a legitimate representative of an organization to induce them to part with their sensitive data, including bank details and credit card and passwords.
Paytm, in his petition to lawyer Karuna Nundy, argued that the telecommunications majors were breaching their obligations under the 2018 Commercial Telecommunications Client Preferences Regulations (TCCCPR), which was notified by TRAI to limit the problem of unsolicited commercial communications.
Paytm stated that under the regulations, telecommunications companies are required to verify with them alleged telemarketers seeking to register (called registered telemarketers or RTMs) before granting access to their customer data and take immediate action against all fraudulent RTMs.
The petition contends that the “failure” of the telecommunications operators to carry out an appropriate verification before this registration allows fraudulent telemarketers to carry out phishing activities against the customers of Paytm and its associated companies.
He further argued that under the statutory regime, telecommunications companies are responsible for preventing such fraud and deterring fraudsters through blockages and / or financial disincentives.
Explaining how fraudsters operate, Paytm stated that these people or entities are registered with telecommunications companies and are assigned headers, such as Paytm, PYTM, PTM, IPAYTN, PYTKYC and its derivatives, which are similar to official Paytm headers. – including BPaytm, FPaytm, PAYTMB, Ipaytm and mPaytm.
Using similar headers, they send messages to Paytm customers to get their sensitive and private information, including account details and passwords, One97 said in his plea.
The messages usually contain a link which, when clicked, installs software on the phone allowing the fraudster to get the customer’s financial account details stored on the device, said the petition.
Some fraudulent RTMs call customers and seek their private information on the pretext of fulfilling their KYC (know your customer) requirements to make their Paytm wallets operational, he added.
Paytm asked the court for instructions to TRAI to ensure the full and strict implementation of the provisions of the TCCCPR in order to combat fraudulent unsolicited commercial communications sent over the mobile networks and to take action against the telecommunications companies for having violated their obligations to verify telemarketers under the regulations.
He also asked the Center to ensure that no SIM card is sold without proper verification and to establish an interagency working group to coordinate measures to limit fraud on the telecommunications networks.
Paytm alleged that even after the violations were brought to the attention of the telecommunications companies, they did not take prompt action to block the fraudulent RTMs and impose financial deterrents on them.
He asked the telecommunications companies to take effective action under the TCCCPR to block the telephone numbers of telemarketers who send unsolicited commercial communications.
Paytm also asserted that certain provisions of the TCCCPR provide for actions only against telemarketers who make unsolicited mass communications and only provide for progressive penalties and requested an order declaring unconstitutional and ultra vires regulations of the TRAI Act.
He also asked the court to declare that under the regulations, telecommunications companies are required to put in place mechanisms for recording reports of violations by customers.
(With the exception of the title, this story was not edited by GalacticGaming staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
