SolutionsHire top legal talent for any scope of workGet Started Contact us to find the best fit for any in-house or law firm role Testimonials Trusted by the world's leading legal departments FAQ Frequently asked questions about working with Legal.ioEmployer Resources Tools and guides for hiring managers Crypto platforms could face claims worth billions of dollars for violating users' privacy.
In a groundbreaking development, several class-action lawsuits have been filed against crypto-trading platforms, alleging that these platforms collected facial scans of users without notifying them. This marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate about privacy and security in the rapidly evolving world of cryptocurrency.
The lawsuits allege that the facial scans were collected without users’ explicit consent or written notice. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants failed to comply with the law, which is intended to protect investors from unscrupulous behavior. This is a serious breach of privacy, raising concerns about how personal data is being used and protected in the crypto industry.
The lawsuits name several crypto-asset exchanges and digital token issuers as defendants, including Coinbase, Binance, Bibox, BitMEX, and KuCoin, as well as seven issuers of digital tokens: Block.one, Tron, Bancor, Civic, Kybercoin, Quantstamp, and Status.
The Future of Crypto-Trading Platforms
The outcome of these lawsuits could potentially reshape the landscape of crypto-trading platforms. If the courts rule that these platforms have indeed violated securities laws and breached user privacy, it could lead to a major overhaul in how these platforms operate. This could include stricter regulations, increased transparency, and enhanced security measures.
Moreover, these lawsuits could serve as a wake-up call for other crypto-trading platforms. They highlight the importance of adhering to securities laws and respecting user privacy. Moving forward, crypto-trading platforms may need to be more diligent in ensuring they comply with all relevant laws and regulations.
The Consequences of BIPA Violations
The consequences of violating the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) can be severe. The Act authorizes statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation or $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. In addition to these statutory damages, individuals may also seek injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, and other litigation expenses.
These companies often store facial data of thousands if not millions of individuals. If the court finds that the violations of BIPA were willful, these companies could potentially face damages in the millions or even billions of dollars.
This serves as a stark reminder of the importance of data privacy, especially in the realm of cryptocurrencies. As the crypto market continues to grow, it is crucial for trading platforms to prioritize user privacy and adhere to data protection laws. This not only helps maintain trust among users but also ensures the security of their personal and financial information.
The fundamentals of whistleblowing hotlines, exploring their significance, various types, and the evolution of whistleblowing systems in today's corporate landscape.
In-house legal professionals share their experiences finding and defining success as in-house counsel.
Generals Counsel talk about how they think the office of the GC should be considering corporate social responsibility and ethical stances.
Our in-house professional community their experiences with sign-on bonuses in the tech world.
‘ERG’ is a term that is increasingly heard in the workplace - an Employee Resource Group.
The service is causing controversy in various class actions suits.
In-house legal professionals discuss salary negotiations during the interview process.
US multinationals are restructuring their overseas holdings to bring foreign subsidiary ownership back to the US, delaying the impact of a newly established 15% global minimum tax.
The Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”), where USCIS decisions get appealed, gave a decision that not only clarified the standards for approving L-1A visas, but also reprimanded USCIS for constantly applying a more difficult and incorrect standard.
