DOJ Clears Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger Without Conditions 
US Appeals Court Limits ICE Detention Without Bond Hearings After 90 Days 
Trump has made more than $1 billion from crypto in a year. How? 
DOJ Seeks Dismissal of Fraud Charges Against Gautam Adani in U.S. Court 
HSBC Australia Faces A$35M Penalty Over Scam Protection Failures 
Apple Challenges India Antitrust Probe, Says CCI Copied Rivals’ Claims in App Store Case 
California Drivers Sue BP, Walmart, 7-Eleven Over Alleged AI Gas Price Fixing 
FxWirePro- Major Crypto levels and bias summary 
DOJ Opens Investigation Into NYC Coffee Shop Over Anti-Goldman Social Media Post 
ETHUSD Forms Double Bottom at $1500, Signaling Potential Bullish Reversal 
US Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii Gun Carry Law on Private Property 
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
