Florida Investigates OpenAI and ChatGPT Over Alleged Role in FSU Shooting 
Taiwan Court Fines Tokyo Electron Unit $4.78M in Major TSMC Trade Secrets Case 
Judge Orders Release of Family After Longest ICE Detention Under Trump Administration 
Sinaloa Governor Ruben Rocha Denies U.S. Cartel Allegations, Calls Charges Political 
Bitcoin Breathes at $80K: Bullish Structure Holds as Risk Aversion Creeps In 
FxWirePro- Major Crypto levels and bias summary 
U.S. Army Soldier Charged in $400K Insider Betting Scheme on Maduro Capture 
Florida Launches Criminal Probe Into OpenAI Over FSU Shooting Incident 
Judge Dismisses Elon Musk’s Fraud Claims Against OpenAI, Trial to Proceed on Remaining Allegations 
FxWirePro- Major Crypto levels and bias summary 
Arcadia Mayor Eileen Wang Pleads Guilty in China Foreign Agent Case 
Argentina Court Upholds Cristina Kirchner Asset Seizure in Corruption Case 
Trump Administration Seeks Court Pause to Reinstate 10% Global Tariffs 
The company behind Atomic Wallet has filed a motion to dismiss a class action suit in a United States court demanding compensation for a $100-million hack. Atomic Wallet argues that the claims should have been filed in Estonia, its home country.
Atomic Wallet’s Jurisdiction Argument
The plaintiffs launched the class action suit in August, following a $100-million exploit on Atomic Wallet. This attack affected up to 5,500 users. The incident was attributed to both North Korean and Ukrainian groups.
Asserting the importance of jurisdiction, Atomic Wallet highlights its claim that the suit should have been filed in Estonia due to the specified venue restrictions in its end-user license agreement.
In a recent dismissal motion in a Colorado District Court, the Estonian firm emphasized its lack of ties within the United States as per Cointelegraph. Moreover, Atomic Wallet highlighted that its end-user license agreement explicitly states that all legal disputes should be conducted in Estonia.
Atomic Wallet further emphasized that only one user in Colorado was reportedly affected by the hack. Trading View pointed out that with such a limited impact within the state, the company believes that the class action suit lacks sufficient grounds.
Compliance with Terms of Service and Rejection of Negligence Claims
Another key argument presented by Atomic Wallet is that the 5,500 affected users agreed to the terms of service, which explicitly absolves the company from liability concerning theft and limits damages to $50 per user. The firm asserts that the plaintiffs knowingly accepted these terms.
Atomic Wallet argues that the plaintiffs' negligence claims hold no weight as Colorado law does not recognize the existence of a legal duty for the company to maintain wallet security and protect against hacking. The firm maintains that the responsibility falls solely on the user.
The Estonian-based wallet provider also dismisses claims of fraudulent misrepresentation made by the plaintiffs. Atomic Wallet denies any wrongdoing and challenges the accuracy of these allegations.
Photo: Atomic Wallet Newsroom
