The company behind Atomic Wallet, based in Estonia, has filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit in a Colorado District Court in the United States. The lawsuit seeks damages related to a $100 million hack that affected up to 5,500 users of Atomic Wallet. The firm’s primary argument for dismissal is based on jurisdictional grounds, asserting that it has no significant ties to the United States and that its end-user license agreement stipulates that any litigation against it must be filed in Estonia.
Key points from Atomic Wallet’s dismissal motion include:
Jurisdiction and Venue: Atomic Wallet argues that the United States is not the appropriate jurisdiction for this lawsuit. They emphasize that the company is based in Estonia and that their end-user license agreement specifically requires litigation to be filed in Estonia. This argument is central to their motion to dismiss the case.
Limited U.S. Impact: The company points out that only one user in Colorado was allegedly affected by the hack, suggesting that the impact in the U.S. is minimal.
Terms of Service Agreement: Atomic Wallet highlights that the 5,500 users allegedly affected by the hack had agreed to its terms of service. These terms reportedly include a disclaimer of liability for losses due to theft and a limitation of damages to $50 per user.
Negligence Claims: The firm contends that the plaintiffs’ negligence claims lack legal merit. They argue that there was no legal duty established that required them to maintain the security of Atomic Wallet and protect against hacking. This argument is based on the premise that Colorado law, where the lawsuit was filed, does not recognize such a duty.
Fraudulent Misrepresentation Allegations: Atomic Wallet also refutes allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation made by the plaintiffs.
The class action lawsuit was initiated in August, following a significant exploit of Atomic Wallet in June, which led to substantial losses for many users. The attack was reportedly attributed to groups from North Korea and Ukraine.
The outcome of this motion to dismiss will depend on how the court interprets the jurisdictional arguments and the terms of service agreement, among other legal considerations. If the court finds that the case falls under Estonian jurisdiction as per the user agreement, it may grant the motion to dismiss. However, if the court determines that sufficient ties to the U.S. exist or that other legal factors override the jurisdictional argument, the case may proceed in the Colorado District Court.
Get $200 Free Bitcoins every hour! No Deposit No Credit Card required. Sign Up