The company behind Atomic Wallet, an Estonian firm, has requested a United States court to dismiss a class action suit seeking damages from a $100-million hack. The suit alleges that Atomic Wallet failed to provide adequate security measures, resulting in the exploitation of the wallets of up to 5,500 users. However, the company argues that the claims should have been filed in Estonia, where it is headquartered.
The Estonian firm stated in a Nov. 16 dismissal motion in a Colorado District Court that it has “no U.S. ties.” Referring to the end-user license agreement, Atomic Wallet emphasized that all litigation against the company should be filed in its home country of Estonia. Furthermore, the firm pointed out that only one user in Colorado was allegedly affected by the hack.
Atomic Wallet claims that the 5,500 users affected by the hack had agreed to its terms of service, which include a disclaimer of liability for losses due to theft and a damages limit of $50 per user. The company argues that the plaintiffs should not be able to hold it liable for the full extent of the damages. It maintains that the users willingly accepted these terms when they agreed to its services.
The Issue of Legal Duty
Atomic Wallet denies any negligence on its part and asserts that the plaintiffs’ claims lack legal merit. The company argues that there was no legal duty created for them to maintain the security of their wallets and protect against hacking. Atomic Wallet cites the Colorado court’s previous rejections of similar claims, stating that the state recognizes no such duty.
Rejection of Fraudulent Misrepresentation Allegations
The Estonian-based wallet provider has also refuted allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation. It asserts that it did not mislead its users in any way regarding the security of their wallets. Atomic Wallet maintains that the plaintiffs’ claims in this regard should be dismissed.
The class action suit against Atomic Wallet was filed in August, two months after the $100-million exploit. The attack has been attributed to both North Korean and Ukrainian groups. However, Atomic Wallet argues that the suit should be dismissed, as the claims should have been filed in Estonia, not the United States. The company’s defense is centered around its user agreement, which includes a limitation of liability and disclaimers. Additionally, Atomic Wallet maintains that it should not be held responsible for the security of its users’ wallets, as there was no legal duty established. As the case progresses, it remains to be seen whether the court will dismiss the class action suit or allow it to proceed.
