Bitcoin Forum

Here is a link to the lawsuit.  I'm not sure it's good news for the Bitcoin community, but at least the larger bad actors are beginning to fall fast.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/160406193/Bitinstant-Class-Action-Lawsuit (http://www.scribd.com/doc/160406193/Bitinstant-Class-Action-Lawsuit)

Wow.  How'd you find that?

I have an account on the PACER federal court document search system, and happened to run across it.  It was filed on July 8th but I have heard nothing about it, so I thought it would be interesting to some people.

Checked. Legit. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2013cv04674/414466/

Can't find any info on the people involved...

Thanks, will definitely use in the future.  This is very big, even if it is bad news.  Thanks for breaking it.   

Thank you for posting this.

Hmm, some of those items could even apply to BitSynCom, maybe a federal lawsuit could even be headed towards Avalon's way in the near future.

First glance, this looks like a reach from some bummy btc users. Problems with $30 worth of btc?

I'm not one for scams or losing money and all that, but BitInstant was having a lot of trouble and they were seeing an overwhelming rush in transactions and users. It's like jumping onto the highway during rush hour and wondering why you can't get to where you need to go in 10 minutes...What do you think is going to happen? These are new companies using new technology and running into new obstacles, they don't work magic. How can we move forward as a community when we need to constantly take two steps back due to impatient, incompetent users?

(I could have totally missed something with the whole BitInstant debacle so bear with me if so).

Many class action lawsuits are over relatively small transactions (though you chose to mention the lowest transaction amount shown in the complaint).  It is a significant suit, however, because class action status means that every person that the court determines was damaged by their actions will be awarded money (the people that the court determines to be in the "class" of people that were damaged).  The court will base this on Bitinstant's internal records, and would likely affect to a significant percentage of transactions that occurred in 2013, which is likely to be tens of thousands of transactions and millions of dollars in damages.

With regard to your general statement that users should have expected problems, I don't think that's a valid legal defense :) .  The problem, as mentioned in the complaint, is that Bitinstant went to great lengths to represent that they could and would deliver all orders within two hours.  Once these attorneys get into the discovery process, they will get access to Bitinstant's internal databases, and I think the sh*t will hit the fan when they see the sheer number of orders and the massive delays (and in some cases, outright non-delivery) that occurred.

Filing as a class action doesn't yet make it a class action.  The courts need to certify the class and unless you see a public record that it has happened then that is the first line of defense.  Companies will routinely bring out the bring guns to prevent certification as a class because while the lawsuit can go forward it will go forward as individual claims.

That is true.  The courts do need to certify it, and this case is in its very early stages.  The next court date, a pre-trial conference, is in mid-September.  But, it doesn't bode well.  The claims seem legitimate and the lawyers behind it seem to know what they are doing.  The minimum number of people necessary to form a class is 50, and I suspect that in this case there are thousands of potential class members.  They seem to have a legitimate shot at obtaining class action status.

I'm impressed by the caliber of the posts so far on this thread!  

The law firm is right in my backyard, but I've never done any work with them.  They seem to specialize in class action plaintiff's work.  The fireworks will be fun to watch, at least, and federal cases move very quickly, as opposed to state-court cases.  

[closer analysis to come - I just wanted to jump in while the thread was still young :) ]

$250 dollars for one plaintiff, $500 for another. Not saying its nothing, but...it's a pretty low amount.

Also, you don't need any special accounts. This is on /r/bitcoin =P

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1keodi/class_action_lawsuit_filed_against_bitinstant/

It looks like the lawyer(s) here are looking to be "First to file" + trolling for more class: By being the first to file the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are able to pick their court venue. Then you troll for other disgruntled BitInstant customers to add to the class action.

Continued situations like this are exactly why you see regulators serving subpoenas and looking to establish rules of the road.  While many here see regulations and regulators as bad, the truth is that much of their job is providing consumer protection.  Whether they overreach or abuse their powers is a topic for another discussion.

Establishing such safeguards is good for Bitcoin because with consumer protections, comes consumer confidence.  I hope we see wrongdoers dealt with swiftly and legitimate entities held within a fair regulatory framework but also not crushed by overbearing regulatory policy.  Asking too much?  Time will tell. 

There is zero consumer protection, and i don't see how there ever will be.

Bitcoin puts the responsibility on the individual, so perhaps we will see more small claims proceedings for BTC.

The only point of regulation, as I can see it, is at the point of BTC purchase.

Would this be the second major Bitcoin "case" with the U.S. legal system?

Do forum members perceive as this adding to Bitcoin's standing or it losing another piece of its soul?  :-\

cant speak for anyone else, but IMO these are to be expected growing pains.

You might want to reread my post again.  The fact that there are no protections is a big part of why regulations are necessary.  To provide those consumer protections and in turn, consumer confidence.  When the masses believe they are safe dealing in Bitcoins, you will see more "regular" people giving Bitcoin a much deeper look.  Expect as more lawsuits and crackdowns happen and Bitcoin entities comply with regulatory standards, the value of Bitcoin will rise and it could be dramatic,
making $260 look like $2,60.    

Point as it relates to this thread, is this is good for Bitcoin.  Entities are being held accountable but it also emphases the need for a proper and fair regulatory framework, moving forward.  Rules of the road are necessary.  No one likes speed limits but most agree they serve a good purpose. 

How do you regulate the unregulatable?

You're not regulating the 'unregulatable'. BitInstant was a FIAT<->BITCOIN conversion business. It was not wholly anchored in Bitcoin and therefore assertions that no laws can be brought to bear on it are likely baseless.

Bitcoin maybe make-believe money but US dollars are not. When people are out-of-pocket on the scale that BitInstant was running; things like class action suits are an almost inevitable ugly consequence.

What I was saying was that the only way I think you can "regulate" is to sue someone in small claims court. How is the government going to control the flow of bitcoins? It does not seem possible.

also, if your quotes were used to imply that I was not using an actual word, my source is: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unregulatable

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1kg0ok/what_bitcoin_laws_or_bitcoin_regulations_could/

The only way you could regulate the flow of bitcoins would be to stop all the exchanges from using USD (yeah, right). Now, this wouldn't shut down bitcoin, just stall any bitcoins being purchased off of exchanges. Bitcoin to fiat purchases would still happen on a personal level at least.

The regulation aspect is to control how the fiat to bitcoin operations do business. Remember that they're dealing with US money, and that is regulated. These businesses need to comply with USD money laws, and are accountable when dealing with people's USD or bitcoins held for USD. However, the government shouldn't/can't place regulation on something like bitcoin that can't be destroyed as long as people are using it, short of outlawing Bitcoin and driving bitcoin sales underground.

This is correct.  It's not about regulating the blockchain, it's about regulating the entities that operate as money transmitters, MSB's and other digital currency related businesses.  Consumers and businesses need these protections.  Sure, the blockchain can exist without any of this but you can forget about mass adoption if you eliminate the ability to move fiat -> BTC and BTC -> fiat.

If you want to see BTC values rise significantly, you should support common sense regulations.  Keyword being common sense and easier said than done, I know.  If you want Bitcoin to remain small and underground, then do the opposite.

lawsuit is inaccurate - defendant 2 claims bitcoins were $85 on april 11- they were never that low on that day at all. do they not know they will find out she is a liar? i swear the ambulance chasers are swooping in...

most of the complaints came at the time when mtgox was being destroyed too. i doubt these people actually understood anything that's going on
mtgox was effectively not working blah blah

If they need to amend claims, it will be easy enough for them to find plenty more Bitinstant victims.  413 pages of them right here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128314.msg2766131#msg2766131