Ether Price Rises Despite $1.3B Whale Sell-Off, Targets $3,700 Breakout 
Minnesota Election Judge Arrested Amid Felony Charges of Alleged Ballot Misconduct: 'Fraud at Its Core?' 
Ethereum Insights: Open Interest Surge, Blob Limit Exceeded, and ETF Outflows 
Ethereum's Path to $20K: Correction Likely First, Analysts Warn 
Shiba Inu Sends Urgent Scam Alert Amid 12% Price Spike: Details Unveiled 
Illegal Immigrant Convicted: 'Justice for Laken' as Jose Ibarra Found Guilty on All Counts 
Stellar Jumps 80% to $0.55 as Grayscale Trust Adds Millions—Is $1 Within Reach? 
Cardano Hits $1.06 Milestone as Experts Eye $6 and Beyond in Bullish Breakout 
Pending updates to Canada’s Copyright Act bring consumers closer to the ‘right to repair’ your devices 
XRP Soars as Trump’s Pro-Crypto Treasury Pick Gains Ripple CEO’s Approval 
72% of Americans Demand Bold Action on Controversial Surgeries: ‘Illegal for Minors,’ Says Shocking Poll 
Bitcoin Slides to $95K, XRP Falls Over 10% Amid $495M Liquidation Wave Impacting 197K Traders 
Bitcoin Targets $180K in 2025, TYMIO Founder Predicts Supply Shock 
Texas Schools Spark Debate With Vote to Include Bible Stories in Elementary Curriculum 
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
