Canadian Woman Sues Rogers, Match Over $1.8 Million Bitcoin Theft

A Canadian woman, Raelene Vandenbosch, has initiated legal action against Rogers Communications and Match Transact Inc. following a SIM swap scam that resulted in the theft of her Bitcoin worth approximately $531,000 in 2021. The value of the stolen Bitcoin has since surged to around $1.8 million. Vandenbosch, a pharmacy manager, alleges that an employee at a phone kiosk owned by Match provided her personal information to a hacker, facilitating the theft.

Vandenbosch filed lawsuits in three provinces—Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia (B.C.)—seeking to recover her losses. She claims that a hacker, posing as a Rogers technician, convinced a Match-owned mobile store employee in Montreal to share their computer screen. This action allowed the hacker to access her account information, even though she was in B.C. at the time. The hacker then downloaded her account information onto a SIM card in their possession, hijacked her account, and stole her Bitcoin.

Vandenbosch is suing for negligence, breach of privacy, and breach of contract. She is seeking restoration of the amount that the Bitcoin was worth at the time of the theft, along with other damages and an admission of guilt. Rogers and Match have responded by arguing that the issue should be resolved through private arbitration, as per the arbitration agreement Vandenbosch signed with Rogers as part of her cellphone plan.

The B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anita Chan ruled that the case will proceed to arbitration, except for the part seeking a public admission of wrongdoing, which can proceed in court due to public interest. The judge did not rule on the facts of the case, meaning that if Vandenbosch continues to pursue the suit and either company is forced to admit fault, she may not be compensated for the lost Bitcoin.

A spokesperson for Rogers defended the company's security record and highlighted the risks associated with digital assets. “As fraudsters use constantly evolving techniques to try and take advantage of consumers across the wireless industry, we continually strengthen our security measures to protect our customers against fraudulent activity,” the spokesperson stated.

Vandenbosch contends that she should not be required to go through arbitration due to amendments made by the B.C. government to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act in March. The amendments bar cell phone companies from imposing arbitration agreements on customers, arguing that forced arbitration hurts users. Vandenbosch argued that these new laws should be retroactively applied to her case, but Justice Chan disagreed, stating that the rules are not meant to be retroactive.

The spokesperson from the B.C. Ministry of Attorney General clarified that the prohibition on arbitration agreements came into force on March 31, 2025, and applies to new disputes launched after that date. This means that if a supplier had a pre-existing contract with an arbitration clause, the parties are no longer bound to arbitrate if they were not already in arbitration at the time.