sim swap check behavior alignment

[bigludo7]

Hello Team,
We have a probable inconsistency in France (discussed in GSMA Market Champion) for the sim swap check behavior alignment.

Suppose a customer subscribed a new line Sept 1st, 2025.
An application is performing a sim-swap- check Sept 10th, 2025 with a maxDate set to (1200hours) 50 days

• Some French operators consider that when no sim swap occurred, activation date is a kind of sim swap and answer TRUE
• While other only consider real sim swap (change of sim within same operator) and answer FALSE

(Note: same thing for the case of a portability – not a sim swap for some and a sim swap for other)

Does Sim Swap for you is only change of SIM within same operator or do you consider first activation (from scratch or portability) as Sim Swap?

Looking for feedback from other operators (@fernandopradocabrillo @ToshiWakayama-KDDI @HuubAppelboom @maxl2287, etc..)

[jgarciahospital]

Hi Ludo! We had this discussion along this group some time ago, and the conclusion was that the SIM creation is indeed a useful and valid information for the customers. They'd like to know about a recent change in the MSISDN/SIM, so that a stable old SIM can be considered as confident, while a recent changed/created SIM is not reliable as may have been hacked.

Based on this, Telefonica is supporting current API specification, considering MSISDN activation/portability as a SIM Swap, in fact considered as the original Swap definition of "change of binding between IMSI and MSISDN".

[bigludo7]

Thanks you Jorge !

[ToshiWakayama-KDDI]

Hi @bigludo7 ,

We follow the current API specification generally and our thought is mostly the same as Telefonica's, considering MSISDN activation/protability as a kind of SIM Swap. So, in this case, our thought would be similar to the first bullet, and our answer would be TRUE.

Best,
Toshi

[bigludo7]

Thanks you Toshi !

[bigludo7]

Hello - French market has decided to be aligned with CAMARA (meaning @jgarciahospital and @ToshiWakayama-KDDI approach)
I close this discussion