Identity Theft Is Common — and Often Absurd

Identity theft is one of the most widespread and costly online threats facing individuals and businesses today. According to the Scorpion 2025 Legal Consumer Trends Report (archived version), law firms across the United States are seeing a sharp rise in client matters involving online fraud, impersonation, and digital identity misuse. From e-commerce sellers to everyday consumers, nearly everyone is at risk.

At Ford Banister LLC, we've seen firsthand how identity theft affects online sellers, brand owners, and entrepreneurs. Our attorneys have spent years gathering evidence of impersonation, counterfeit operations, and fraudulent business filings, often across multiple marketplaces and jurisdictions.

One case that highlights the absurd side of this issue involves what we've come to call the "CamelBak Order." In that case, a defendant filed a motion to vacate default so sloppily that the court's denial order reads like a comedy sketch. Yet behind the humor lies a serious message: even minor identity errors, mismatched data, or unauthorized filings can have real-world legal consequences.

The CamelBak Case: When Identity Fraud Meets Federal Court

In January 2021, United States District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly issued an order in CamelBak Products, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on "Schedule A" (Case No. 20 C 1544, Northern District of Illinois) that demonstrates just how audacious online fraudsters have become.

The case involved trademark infringement and counterfeiting—common issues in Schedule A litigation designed to protect brands from anonymous online fraudsters. The defendant, operating under the alias "Mr. Hat" on the e-commerce platform WISH.com, faced a default judgment of $10,000 (notably far less than the $250,000 CamelBak originally requested).

The Motion to Vacate: A House of Cards

In attempting to vacate the default judgment, the defendant claimed he was a minor, specifically, a 15-year-old Chinese citizen named ShaoWei Chen. His argument was that entering a default judgment against a minor was improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). He submitted what he claimed was his official Chinese government-issued identification card showing a birthdate of December 24, 2005.

What happened next reads almost like satire, but it illustrates the very real problem of identity theft in online fraud cases.

How the Fraud Unraveled

Judge Kennelly's order methodically dismantled the defendant's claims with observations that reveal the absurdity and danger of modern identity theft:

The Celebrity Photo Gambit: CamelBak's investigation revealed that the photo on the identification card wasn't Mr. Chen at all. It was actually Chinese celebrity Zhiwei Zhao. The defendant had submitted a forged government identification card featuring a celebrity's image to a federal court.

Multiple Conflicting Identities: Records from WISH.com showed that "Mr. Hat" had submitted different identification during account registration—showing a person born in 1984 (age 36), not 2005. This person was clearly not the same individual shown in the court submission.

The Impossible Timeline: During the video hearing, Mr. Chen stated he started his online business in 2008. Judge Kennelly noted the glaring problem: If Chen was born in December 2005 as his ID claimed, he would have started his counterfeiting operation at age 2 or 3. The judge wrote plainly: "That's not possible."

Physical Appearance Discrepancies: The person appearing at the video hearing looked "far older than 15 years old" and bore no resemblance to the person in the submitted identification card. Judge Kennelly documented that the faces had entirely different shapes. Then came perhaps the most memorable observation in the entire order: "In addition, the ears of the person on the identification card stick out somewhat, but Mr. Chen's ears do not. And the ears of the person in the photo are situated horizontally on his head in a position different from Mr. Chen's ears." Even accounting for two years of aging, the court found the discrepancies "very significant."

The court's conclusion was direct and damning: "The Court does not believe that the identification card submitted in support of Mr. Hat's motion to vacate the default judgment is the actual identification card for the person who owns and operates Mr. Hat. It is either a fake identification card, or it is someone else's identification card."

The motion to vacate was denied.

Why Identity Theft Matters to Businesses

This case may seem absurd, but it represents a serious and growing threat to legitimate businesses. Identity theft isn't just about stolen credit cards—it's a tool used by sophisticated fraud operations to:

• Create fake brand registrations: Counterfeiters use your business name or trademark to mislead customers and siphon sales.

• Launch unauthorized online listings: Impostors sell knockoff products using your brand identity, damaging your reputation.

• File or respond to fraudulent lawsuits: Bad actors manipulate court proceedings in your name or use false identities to evade accountability.

• Impersonate marketplace sellers: Fake "official" seller accounts confuse consumers and steal legitimate revenue.

• Evade legal consequences: As the CamelBak case shows, fraudsters use fake identities to attempt to escape default judgments and other legal actions.

The stakes are high. According to the Federal Trade Commission, consumers reported losing more than $12.5 billion to fraud in 2024, representing a 25% increase over the prior year. More specifically, global e-commerce fraud losses reached $41 billion in 2022 and were predicted to exceed $48 billion in 2023, with cumulative losses to online payment fraud globally projected to exceed $343 billion between 2023 and 2027. Businesses lose billions annually to counterfeiters and identity thieves operating on e-commerce platforms. These criminals hide behind layers of false identities, making brand protection increasingly complex.

The Role of Schedule A Litigation

The CamelBak case demonstrates why Schedule A litigation has become essential for brand protection. This legal framework allows trademark owners to pursue anonymous defendants operating on e-commerce platforms, even when those defendants hide behind fake identities and shell companies.

Schedule A litigation works by:

• Identifying counterfeit sellers through marketplace data and investigative techniques

• Filing suit against "John Doe" defendants listed on Schedule A

• Obtaining temporary restraining orders to freeze accounts and seize funds

• Using discovery to unmask the real identities behind fraudulent operations

• Securing default judgments when defendants fail to respond or, as in CamelBak's case, submit fraudulent documentation

Even when fraudsters attempt to evade judgment through identity fraud, thorough evidence gathering and experienced legal representation can expose the scheme.

How Ford Banister LLC Helps Protect Your Identity

Our team focuses on brand protection, Schedule A litigation, brand protection, and online identity recovery. We've represented hundreds of clients in protecting their businesses from impersonation, account takeovers, and counterfeit listings.

We've spent years gathering evidence of identity theft schemes, tracking counterfeit operations across multiple marketplaces, and pursuing fraudsters through federal litigation. We understand how these criminals operate, what evidence courts require, and how to present that evidence effectively.

Don't Wait Until the Damage Is Irreversible

The CamelBak case shows that even the most absurd identity fraud schemes can cause real harm to businesses. While Judge Kennelly's order may read like a comedy sketch, CamelBak invested significant resources in litigation, investigation, and legal fees to protect its trademark from a counterfeiter hiding behind false identities.

The earlier you detect and respond to identity theft, brand impersonation, or counterfeit operations, the less damage they can cause to your business reputation and bottom line.

If you suspect your brand or identity has been misused online, don't wait. Every day that counterfeiters operate under your brand name, they're stealing customers, damaging your reputation, and potentially exposing you to liability for defective products you never made.

Take Action Now

Contact Ford Banister LLC today. We help you uncover evidence, take swift legal action, and reclaim control of your digital identity. Our experience with Schedule A litigation, brand protection, and online fraud investigation means we know how to fight back against identity thieves.

Whether you're facing counterfeit sellers on Amazon, fraudulent trademark applications, unauthorized brand registrations, or marketplace impersonators, we have the expertise and track record to protect your business.