Apple Protected From Crypto Wallet App Lawsuit, Judge Rules – Featured Bitcoin News

A federal judge in California has ruled that Apple Inc. is immune from a “Toast Plus” class action lawsuit over a fake wallet app that was available in the Apple App Store. A customer sued the tech giant after they downloaded the fraudulent app and lost some of their crypto.

Apple is not responsible for any loss after the customer downloads the fake crypto app

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Apple Inc. is not liable in a class-action lawsuit over a fraudulent cryptocurrency wallet app that was offered for download on the company’s app store, Bloomberg reported Tuesday.

Plaintiff Hadona Deep, a crypto investor, accused Apple of hosting a fraudulent mobile app that mimicked a legitimate XRP wallet app called Toast Plus. The fake app had the same name and logo as its legitimate counterpart. She filed a class action lawsuit against the tech giant in Maryland federal court in September of last year; The case was transferred to the Northern District of California in December.

The lawsuit alleges that in January 2018, the plaintiff downloaded the fake app from the Apple App Store and used it to transfer 474 XRP coins from crypto exchange Bittrex to a Rippex wallet.

Rippex was shut down in February 2018 but the plaintiff can still access her coins from other wallets. The plaintiff continued that she “linked her own XRP key or pedigree to Toast Plus in March 2021. However, when she checked her Toast Plus account in August 2021, she discovered that her account had been deleted in March 2021 and her deposited XRP coins were nowhere to be found.

Deep said Apple suffered more than $5,000 in damages for hosting a fraudulent crypto wallet app. Her partner, Ryumei Nagao, said she lost $500,000.

Judge Hamilton agreed with Apple that the technology company cannot be held responsible for the fake app. According to Hamilton’s Sept. 2 decision, Apple has immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because content provided by another content provider is considered a publisher, not a creator.

The judge also agreed with Apple that Depp did not successfully plead its claims under the California and Maryland Consumer Privacy Acts because it did not provide specific details about the time, place and content of the alleged misrepresentations.

Moreover, Deep’s claims must be rejected because under Apple’s terms and conditions, the company is not responsible for damages arising from the use of third-party apps or the buyer’s details.

Do you think Apple should be held responsible for the loss suffered by the customer? Let us know in the comments section below.

Kevin Helms

Kevin, an Austrian economics student, discovered Bitcoin in 2011 and has been an evangelist ever since. His interests are in Bitcoin security, open source systems, network effects and the intersection between economics and cryptography.

Image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

DisclaimerThis article is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer or solicitation to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services or companies. does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the Company nor the Author shall be liable, directly or indirectly, for any damages or losses arising out of the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services referred to in this paragraph.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *