The company responsible for Atomic Wallet has submitted a request to a United States court, urging the dismissal of a class action lawsuit that seeks damages in the aftermath of a $100-million hack.
Their argument centers on the assertion that the claims should have been lodged in Estonia, where the company is headquartered.
In a motion for dismissal filed on November 16th in a Colorado District Court, the Estonian firm emphasized that it maintains “no U.S. ties.”
They cited their end-user license agreement, which explicitly mandates that all legal disputes against the company must be initiated in their home country of Estonia.
Furthermore, Atomic Wallet highlighted the fact that only one user in Colorado was reportedly impacted by the hack.
The company also underscored that the approximately 5,500 affected Atomic Wallet users had willingly agreed to its terms of service.
These terms of service clearly disclaim liability for losses due to theft and impose limits on damages, capping them at $50 per user.
Atomic Wallet argued that the plaintiff’s allegations of negligence lacked legal merit, as no legal duty existed that required them to maintain the security of Atomic Wallet or protect against hacking.
They pointed out that the Colorado legal system does not recognize such a duty, citing previous court decisions as precedent.
Additionally, the Estonian-based wallet provider refuted claims of fraudulent misrepresentation brought forward by the plaintiffs.
The class action lawsuit was initiated in August, a couple of months following a $100-million exploit that affected up to 5,500 users of Atomic Wallet.
This hack had been attributed to both North Korean and Ukrainian groups.
In sum, Atomic Wallet’s request for dismissal centers on its contention that the lawsuit should be filed in Estonia in accordance with their terms of service.
They also argue that the claims of negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation are legally baseless, pointing to the limited liability and lack of a recognized legal duty in the state of Colorado as supporting arguments for the dismissal.