Atomic Wallet, the company at the center of a $100-million hack, has filed a dismissal motion in a United States court, urging the court to reject the class action suit seeking damages. The firm argues that the claims should have been filed in Estonia, where it is based, rather than in the US. According to Atomic Wallet, it has “no U.S. ties” and its end-user license agreement clearly stipulates that all litigation against the company must be filed in Estonia. Furthermore, Atomic Wallet highlights that only one user in Colorado was allegedly affected by the hack, while the majority of its users are located outside of the US.
In its legal motion, Atomic Wallet stresses that the 5,500 users who were allegedly affected by the hack had all agreed to its terms of service, which explicitly disclaims liability for losses resulting from theft and limits damages to $50 per user. Therefore, Atomic Wallet claims that the plaintiffs’ negligence claims lack legal merit, as the company cannot be held responsible for losses that were clearly stated in the terms of service. The company also emphasizes that it had no legal duty to maintain the security of the wallet or protect against hacking, as no such duty was established by the users or recognized by Colorado law.
The Estonian-based wallet provider also rejects allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation made by the plaintiffs. While the hack incident occurred in August, it was only two months later that the class action suit was filed. Atomic Wallet maintains that it was not involved in any fraudulent activity or misrepresentation. Instead, the company suggests that external actors, specifically North Korean and Ukrainian groups, were to blame for the exploit. The dismissal motion argues that the plaintiffs’ claims of fraudulent misrepresentation are baseless and lack substantial evidence.
It is important to examine the arguments presented by Atomic Wallet in its dismissal motion. The company asserts that the class action suit should be dismissed due to the following reasons:
1. Jurisdiction: Atomic Wallet argues that the claims should have been filed in Estonia, as stated in its end-user license agreement. This raises the question of whether the jurisdiction chosen by Atomic Wallet is reasonable and whether it adequately protects the rights of affected users.
2. User Agreement Compliance: The company asserts that the affected users had agreed to its terms of service, which limited liability and damages. This brings up the issue of how such terms of service are presented to users and whether they are sufficiently clear and transparent.
3. Negligence Claims: Atomic Wallet argues that it had no legal duty to maintain the security of the wallet or protect against hacking. This raises the question of whether the company should be held responsible for the security of its users’ funds and personal information.
4. Allegations of Fraudulent Misrepresentation: The company denies any involvement in fraudulent activity and blames external actors for the hack. This raises the question of whether Atomic Wallet took adequate measures to prevent such incidents and whether it should bear any responsibility for the hack.
Atomic Wallet’s dismissal motion presents several arguments to reject the class action suit seeking damages from the $100-million hack. However, it is crucial for the court to carefully evaluate the arguments and consider the rights of the affected users. The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for the future of cryptocurrency wallets and the responsibilities of wallet providers.