The golden rule for any consumer-facing business is that you don’t fiddle with sensitive data—it’s called sensitive for a reason. However, when companies break that rule, it’s always downhill from there, no matter how big they are. Ringba’s story is a perfect reminder of that.
Ringba, once celebrated as a heavyweight in pay-per-call marketing, now faces allegations involving wire fraud, data theft, and enabling scams. Under the leadership of Adam Young, the company built its reputation on call tracking and TCPA compliance tools, boasting annual revenues of $7.5 million.
However, mounting lawsuits and an FBI investigation definitely overshadow its success.
In 2020, Adam Young approached Michael O’Hare, the founder of the TCPA Litigator List, with what seemed like a straightforward business proposition—acquiring the company. But this was no ordinary negotiation. While discussions were ongoing, Young allegedly created an account on the TCPA Litigator List’s platform and accessed its database. Within months, Ringba was selling a nearly identical suppression list under a new competing site called ‘TCPA Shield.’ This sparked legal action from O’Hare.
The lawsuit, TCPA Litigator List v. Ringba LLC, painted a picture of corporate betrayal. A court-mandated analysis found a staggering 95% plus overlap between the databases. O’Hare’s case was eventually dismissed on technical grounds, with the court citing discovery violations. But legal experts suggested that had the case proceeded, Ringba’s chances of winning were slim. Why?
During the legal process, Ringba’s defense demanded that O’Hare provide his complete source code as part of discovery. Legal experts argue that such a request, nearly impossible to fulfill, was a deliberate strategy to exploit procedural rules. By forcing a dismissal on technical grounds, the defense aimed to establish a Rule 37 violation to shift legal fees and avoid substantive scrutiny of the claims. However, the dismissal did little to clear the company’s name, leaving questions about its practices hanging in the air.
Meanwhile, Michael O’Hare found himself caught up in the nuances of the justice system. O’Hare filed this lawsuit to defend his company, as Adam Young ultimately used his trade secrets to establish a competing brand. Yet, the court didn’t just dismiss the lawsuit on technicalities—it ordered him to cover the defendant’s legal fees, amounting to half a million dollars. O’Hare is now facing potential bankruptcy, and his company, TCPA Litigator List, is on the brink of collapse.
While the TCPA lawsuit may have faded, Ringba’s troubles didn’t stop there. Federal investigators uncovered deeper issues tied to the company’s platform, which prosecutors say became a haven for scammers (see USA v. Sean Hitchcock). Court filings allege that Ringba actively marketed itself to those engaged in fraudulent activities.
The indictment outlines how the platform offered features that appealed directly to scammers—tools for rotating phone numbers, bypassing telecom scrutiny, and creating a shield of anonymity. These services, prosecutors argue, were not accidental benefits but deliberate selling points.
For scammers running tech support fraud schemes, Ringba’s capabilities were a game-changer. The platform allegedly allowed fraudsters to identify victims based on income, location, and even digital literacy. Calls could be rerouted to make scams appear more credible, while Ringba reportedly assured telecom providers that flagged numbers had been removed, even as fraudsters continued their operations.
The indictment is damning. Although the investigation is still ongoing, Federal prosecutors currently accuse Ringba of conspiracy, enabling wire fraud, and supporting tech support scams. The fallout has cast a long shadow over the company, raising urgent questions about how much its leadership knew and encouraged.
Rather than adopting a defensive stance, Ringba has gone on the offensive. The company filed civil lawsuits against former employees and associates who are cooperating with federal investigators. One prominent case involves Sean Hitchcock, a former salesperson turned witness for the FBI. Ringba accuses Hitchcock of breaching his contract and disclosing proprietary information.
Critics argue this is a calculated move to disrupt the criminal investigation. Ringba appears to be fishing for insights into the government’s case against it by demanding broad document disclosures. Legal experts point out that such tactics are often frowned upon in court.
In Dominguez v. Hartford Financial Services, for instance, the court ruled that civil proceedings cannot be used to gain an unfair advantage in criminal investigations.
Hitchcock isn’t the only target. Ringba has launched similar legal actions against its former CTO, another key figure cooperating with federal authorities. The pattern is clear: the company is leveraging civil lawsuits to intimidate witnesses and derail investigations.
The allegations against Ringba go beyond legal missteps—they call into question the company’s ethical compass. From the TCPA data theft to enabling fraud on its platform, the narrative suggests a business culture where the ends justify the means.
Adam Young’s leadership is particularly under scrutiny. Legal filings and court testimonies portray a figure willing to exploit loopholes and push ethical boundaries to maintain dominance. Whether through litigation tactics or allegedly marketing the platform to scammers, Young’s actions reflect a troubling approach to business.
Ringba’s story is a cautionary tale for the pay-per-call marketing industry. The allegations expose vulnerabilities in the ecosystem, where platforms can be manipulated for fraudulent purposes. More importantly, they highlight the need for stricter oversight and accountability.
While Ringba’s future hangs in the balance, the industry is watching closely. The criminal trial will serve as a litmus test for how regulators and courts handle companies accused of enabling fraud. For Ringba, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Its reputation, business model, and leadership face the ultimate stress test.
The Road Ahead
The pay-per-call giant finds itself at a crossroads. Legal battles continue to pile up, and the FBI investigation shows no signs of slowing. Ringba may have avoided losing the TCPA case on a technicality, but federal prosecutors are unlikely to tolerate similar maneuvers in a criminal court.
For a company once seen as a leader in call tracking and compliance, the fall from grace is striking. Whether Ringba can survive these challenges remains to be seen. What’s clear, however, is that the industry—and its regulators—will have to grapple with the broader implications of this saga.
Leave a Comment