Nomad Internet has been accused by the Texas Attorney General of perpetuating a $75 million deceptive scheme: “I have secured a temporary injunction with an asset freeze against Nomad Internet to make sure they cannot scam any more unsuspecting consumers,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxon.
The April 20, 2023 action comes just a few weeks after we and numerous other YouTube RV creators exposed a long list of customer service complaints and controversy about the founder's criminal background.
Here's a video we just did explaining the law enforcement actions taken against Nomad and several of its top officers.
Details of the alleged scam
According to Paxon, the Texas lawsuit alleges violations of the state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act by Jessica Garza, her husband Homero “Josh” or “Jayden” Garza, and the company the couple manages and controls, GEV IO, LLC d/b/a Nomad Internet, “which perpetrated a $75 million deceptive scheme from their home in New Braunfels, Texas.”
Paxon said the scheme saw Nomad acquire large quantities of SIM cards from legitimate wireless internet providers, reprogram those SIM cards to avoid detection, and then repackaged the telecommunication equipment for resale.
“The Garzas mispresented their relationship with the legitimate wireless internet providers, inducing consumers to purchase expensive monthly internet service plans. Upon detection of their unauthorized use, the legitimate wireless internet providers terminated the SIM cards, leaving consumers without internet access.,” said Paxon.
The 21-page lawsuit filed by the State of Texas against the Garzas and Nomad Internet is filled with many more details.
At the heart of the case is the way Nomad Internet squired SIM cards.
SIM is an abbreviation for Subscriber Identity Module and is a small electronic chip that is inserted into a mobile phone or another cellular device like a modem that connects to the Internet. It stores information such as the user's phone number, network authentication data, and other data necessary for the device to connect to a cellular network and function properly.
“Defendants have perpetuated a $75 million-dollar deceptive scheme against major internet
service providers and individual consumers alike,” the suit alleges.
“Defendants opened business account contracts with (Mobile Network Operators). Using a business account to obtain SIM cards, Defendants then improperly leased the SIM cards to consumers as if they were an authorized internet service reseller….
“Defendants were not an authorized internet service reseller. The contracts Defendants used to procure the SIM cards prohibited resale.”
Eventually, the big mobile networks caught on that something unauthorized was going on.
The suit explains:
“When this method of obtaining large quantities of SIM cards by creating business accounts
was detected and blocked by networks, Defendants then applied for thousands of individual data
lines using fictional identities….
“After improperly acquiring large quantities of SIM cards by contracts for individual data lines, Defendants illegally resold these lines to unsuspecting consumers. Even after network providers detected and terminated the unauthorized use of their networks, leaving consumers without internet access for which they were paying, Defendants continued to charge consumers large monthly fees.”
And what about that claimed arrangement with Verizon? It was a total lie.
“Defendants have explicitly claimed an affiliation with traditional service providers when
no such partnership existed, such as in advertisements, giving Defendants unwarranted legitimacy
and credibility, misleading consumers to sign up.
“Moreover, by claiming certain wireless networks such as Verizon were partners when they were not, consumers who lived in areas where only Verizon plans worked were especially inclined to sign up for Defendants’ services under the belief they would receive service from Verizon.”
The lawsuit noted that Verizon conducted an undercover operation, having its employees buy Nomad Internet services and products as regular consumers.
“Defendants falsely represented that they are a legitimate internet reseller tied to reputable
companies and that consumers will receive unlimited internet service by subscribing to
“However, they were not, and when internet service providers discovered their SIM cards were being used for more data than for which they agreed; and/or in geographic regions different than what was represented by Defendants, the internet service providers notified Defendants that they were breaching the Terms of Service.
“When no action was taken by Defendants, the internet service providers proceeded to limit the amount of data transmitted to the SIM cards, a practice known as throttling.”
And that is when the consumer complaints started to roll in.
“Upon the substantial slow-down in internet speeds, consumers contacted Defendants,
assuming they own or have some degree of control over the internet service. Of course, because
Defendants do not own or control the equipment, Defendants did nothing except tell the consumers
to return the SIM cards along with the routers in which they were delivered.
“Sometimes, Defendants would send the consumer a new SIM card and router.37
Oftentimes, the SIM card sent to a complaining consumer was a SIM card that had already been
throttled, resulting in equally poor speeds
“Despite the poor service provided, Defendants charged consumers full price, often charged
consumers for equipment that was never delivered, or charged consumers multiple times.
“When consumers attempted to cancel, they were either told they must first return the
equipment—despite the consumers often never having received the product in the first place—or
were told they had successfully canceled their subscription, only to later be charged by Defendants
There is much more in the lawsuit.
But all that was presented to the court and as a result, a temporary injunction was granted that prohibits the company from selling telecommunicatuons services “without authorization or a contractual agreement with a network or service provider.”
Our experience with Nomad Internet
In December 2022, Nomad Internet CEO Jaden Garza contacted me to tell me that his company had a new and special partnership arrangement with Verizon Wireless to sell high-speed, unlimited and unthrottled Internet to rural and mobile customers. He sent us a review unit to try out.
We tried it for four months, from December-March and found the product did work.
In February, Garza asked to be one of our sponsors, running ads on the blog and podcast. Based on our experience with the product, and his claimed partnership with Verizon, we thought it was a worthwhile source of high-speed Internet for RVers.
But then we started receiving complaints from his customers.
Why we ended our relationship with Nomad
When we started to receive emails and complaints about Nomad Internet from disgruntled customers, I forwarded them to the company.
Garza, and service manager Robyn Weber, were responsive at first when I sent them the complaints we were getting. They promised to reach out and resolve the problems of those complaining. They even had their service people answer reader questions and complaints on our YouTube and Facebook forums.
Garza explained the complaints by saying that like many startups, Nomad Internet experienced the highs and lows of rapid growth after they started marketing to RV travelers in mid-2022. Garza conceded they could not scale customer service as fast as their earlier customers needed, which created a reputation problem.
Since then, Garza claimed Nomad Internet had become partners with Verizon and that his customer service department had grown. He said Nomad Internet added a new team of trainers, supervisors, chat, email, and phone operators over the last few months. He said the company had equipped them with all of the tools and resources to quickly identify and resolve all customer concerns.
He repeatedly cited the claimed relationship with Verizon. claiming that if Nomad Internet was really a disreputable company, there's no way Verizon would have partnered with him.
But the complaints kept coming from my readers and many noted specific examples or cited questionable legal issues and past allegations of fraud involving Garza in a previous business.
When I asked him about them, he first denied them.
Then I found more evidence that indicated that he seemed to have used a different name in the past and was charged in a criminal fraud case. I confronted him with that and asked him to clarify.
He stopped replying to my questions after that.
My last communication from him was in early April. He said that he has “taken a step in to (sic) a different position, and Robyn is now CEO of Nomad.”
Ultimately, I decided, there was just too much drama. And too many disgruntled customers.
I learned I am not alone. Other YouTube creators have also dropped the company as a sponsor for similar reasons.
While the modem worked and we had good results using the service, the number of complaints I received about the company and the questionable past of Garza that he never explained, made it clear to me that we could no longer be associated with the company.
So I completely ended our sponsorship arrangement.
Here is a video I did at the time that explains the above:
That video was made before the actions taken by the Texas Attorney General.
Now that Texas officials are trying to untangle the financial mess, we hope they are now able to recover money for those scammed by the Garza's deceptive schemes.