Estonia-based cryptocurrency firm Atomic Wallet is pushing for the dismissal of a $100 million class action lawsuit filed in a Colorado District Court. The company argues that it lacks substantial ties to the United States and insists that the litigation should have been pursued in Estonia, its country of origin.
In a motion filed on November, Atomic Wallet emphasized its absence of “U.S. ties” and pointed to its end-user license agreement, which mandates that all legal disputes against the company should be adjudicated in Estonia. The firm highlighted the fact that only one plaintiff in the class action suit is based in Colorado, where the lawsuit was initiated.
Atomic wallet’s legal stand
Atomic Wallet further defended its position by citing the terms of service agreed upon by the approximately 5,500 users allegedly affected by the $100 million hack. The company asserted that these users explicitly accepted terms disclaiming liability for losses arising from theft, limiting potential damages to $50 per user. The argument posits that the users, by agreeing to these terms, waived the right to hold Atomic Wallet responsible for the hack-related losses.
The dismissal motion challenged the legal merit of negligence claims, contending that there was no established legal duty for users to safeguard Atomic Wallet’s security or protect against hacking. Atomic Wallet maintained that Colorado law recognizes no such duty, a point it claims has been consistently upheld by the court.
The Estonian-based wallet provider also sought to refute allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation raised by the plaintiffs. These claims were directly addressed and rejected in Atomic Wallet’s legal response.
Atomic wallet’s jurisdictional battle unfolds
The class action lawsuit was initiated in August, approximately two months after a $100 million exploit on Atomic Wallet that impacted up to 5,500 users. The attack was attributed to both North Korean and Ukrainian hacker groups. The plaintiffs alleged damages stemming from the hack and sought compensation in the class action, prompting Atomic Wallet to challenge the lawsuit’s jurisdiction and legal basis.
As the legal battle unfolds, Atomic Wallet’s defense underscores its commitment to jurisdictional boundaries and the terms outlined in its user agreements. The company’s position hinges on its perceived lack of ties to the United States and the assertion that users willingly accepted terms limiting Atomic Wallet’s liability. With the dismissal motion now before the court, the cryptocurrency community awaits the resolution of this case, which carries implications for the jurisdictional reach of digital asset-related lawsuits.
In the complex landscape of cryptocurrency litigation, the clash between user expectations, terms of service, and the jurisdictional sovereignty of digital entities continues to shape the legal landscape. As the Atomic Wallet case progresses, it may provide valuable insights into the evolving legal frameworks governing the responsibilities and liabilities of cryptocurrency platforms.
