lawsuit

According to Talking Biz News citing Courthouse News Service, The Wall Street Journal requested a federal judge on Wednesday afternoon to dismiss the defamation lawsuit filed by Binance. The lawsuit targets the newspaper's reports regarding Binance covering up internal investigations, obstructing compliance, and allowing sanctioned entities to trade.In the motion to dismiss, The Wall Street Journal stated that Binance's complaint from March 2026 failed to prove actual malice at the time the relevant reports were published. Binance claimed that the reports were false because it had issued a denial statement to the newspaper, but the newspaper argued that merely repeating a self-defensive denial is insufficient to constitute a defamation claim. During the hearing, The Wall Street Journal's lawyer pointed out that Binance did not deny the core content of the three reports.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a lawsuit against companies such as Adit Ventures Management, accusing them of defrauding investors and client funds in stock investments prior to the IPOs of SpaceX and Klarna.com.

According to TechCrunch, OpenAI is fighting back against Apple's lawsuit regarding the leak of trade secrets, stating that Apple itself has vulnerabilities in its information security management and employee departure processes, and cannot prove that the relevant information is protected trade secrets.Apple previously accused OpenAI of obtaining hardware-related secrets through former employees who left Apple and requested the court to expedite the evidence investigation. In the latest legal documents submitted, OpenAI stated that Apple allows employees to use personal iCloud accounts to handle work materials and did not promptly revoke access after employees left. OpenAI claimed that Apple did not specify the exact trade secrets that were allegedly stolen, but only referred generally to information such as product development processes, supply chains, and testing.OpenAI believes that Apple's lawsuit is more about restricting its development in the AI hardware field and denies that the company needs or uses Apple's trade secrets. The focus of the dispute between the two parties centers on employee mobility, intellectual property protection, and competition in the AI hardware sector.

According to CoinDesk, RedotPay responded to the lawsuit filed by Binance, stating that it will actively defend itself. The company stated in a statement that it is aware of the legal proceedings initiated by Binance and will mount a strong defense against all allegations, denying the related accusations against the company and its co-founders, claiming that these allegations are baseless.Previously, Bloomberg reported that a Binance-affiliated entity filed a lawsuit in Hong Kong against RedotPay's co-founder, accusing him of breaching the agreement by directing over 470,000 Binance users to the RedotPay platform, resulting in approximately $473 million in losses. Binance stated in the lawsuit that it discovered in March 2026 that RedotPay allowed and encouraged the use of Binance Pay funds for unauthorized purposes without isolation, including recharging the RedotPay card. Binance's Chaintecs also filed a lawsuit against RedotPay affiliates in Singapore, with a related hearing scheduled for this Friday.Public information shows that Binance and RedotPay first reached a commercial cooperation in November 2023, which was terminated less than six months later due to Binance's claim that its funds were used for recharging RedotPay prepaid cards. The two parties reached a second agreement in March 2025, requiring Binance funds to remain isolated, allowing Binance users to exchange cryptocurrencies for fiat currency on RedotPay, conduct in-app transfers, and purchase RedotPay branded merchandise, but not to recharge the RedotPay card. Binance terminated the agreement in April 2026, stating it was part of a merchant partner review. RedotPay had previously planned to go public in the U.S. with an estimated valuation of about $4 billion, intending to raise over $1 billion.

According to Bloomberg, Binance affiliated entities Nest Trading, Distributed Technologies, and Chaintecs Consulting Singapore have filed a lawsuit in Hong Kong against RedotPay co-founders Gao Zhangpeng, Chan Wa Choi, and Yao Chao, accusing the three of breaching agreements by redirecting over 470,000 users from Binance Card to RedotPay, claiming damages of $472.8 million. Binance stated that since March 2026, it discovered that RedotPay had been allowing Binance Pay funds to be used for RedotPay card top-ups without isolation, claiming that this cooperation allowed RedotPay to obtain approximately $304 million in user funds from Binance Pay. RedotPay responded that it will vigorously defend against all allegations and that it does not affect the company's daily operations.In addition, Binance affiliated entity Chaintecs has also filed a lawsuit against RedotPay affiliates in Singapore, with a hearing scheduled for Friday. RedotPay had previously sought an IPO with an estimated valuation of approximately $4 billion, stating that its annualized payment volume currently reaches $14 billion, with annualized revenue of $180 million and over 8 million users.

OpenAI issued a public statement on August 3 in response to the lawsuit filed by Apple. OpenAI described Apple's lawsuit as "careless, aggressive, and personal," and pointed out several factual inaccuracies: an external lawyer from Apple mistakenly sent an email intended for someone else to OpenAI's legal head, falsely claiming that the two parties had spoken over the phone; Apple later admitted it was due to "confusing two Asian surnames." OpenAI also revealed that after contacting Apple in February, Apple stated it was "working to resolve any issues," but then did not communicate for 5 months until filing the lawsuit.Regarding the allegations against former Apple employee Chang Liu for taking confidential information, OpenAI presented iMessage records from after his departure showing that Apple colleagues had proactively contacted him to request assistance in locating documents, and acknowledged that this was a common issue caused by Apple's "poor management of exit access." Another named executive, Tang Tan, had worked at Apple for over 24 years, and OpenAI stated that he had consistently required his team "not to use any confidential information from other companies." OpenAI indicated that it had proactively offered to cooperate in resolving the matter, but Apple chose to file a lawsuit, claiming that its request for a preliminary injunction was "based on false information and completely unnecessary." Previously, Apple sued OpenAI in July, accusing it of poaching Apple employees and using confidential information to develop AI products.

According to Axios, despite AI labs offering huge salaries, top titles, and abundant computing resources to compete for top talent, the issue of talent loss remains prominent. Data shows that over 400 former Apple employees are currently working at OpenAI, and Apple has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, accusing it of using Apple's internal code names to extract confidential information obtained from potential applicants.The latest case is that Lilian Weng, co-founder of Thinking Machines Lab, returned to OpenAI just days after leaving, where she will be responsible for recursive self-improvement research. She is the fourth co-founder to leave the lab in the past year. Meanwhile, Google has also seen two well-known researchers switch jobs recently—Noam Shazeer returned to OpenAI, and Nobel Prize-winning chemist John Jumper joined Anthropic. Meta is also facing the issue of high-priced talent rapidly leaving. Reports cite insiders saying that Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has expressed concerns about the new trend of hiring talent "for money rather than mission."

According to Jinshi reports, court documents show that 25 states in the United States have filed lawsuits challenging Trump's latest tariff measures.

The U.S. Attorney's Office announced that it has filed a civil forfeiture lawsuit to recover 47,461.73111 USDT, stating that this amount comes from a cyber fraud case. The fraudsters deceived victims into depositing funds into cryptocurrency ATMs and then stole the funds.Law enforcement tracked part of the funds to a cryptocurrency wallet and seized it in March 2026. The investigation also confirmed that the funds of four other similar fraud victims can be traced back to the same wallet.

According to The Block, the New York State Attorney General has filed a lawsuit against Kalshi, accusing it of operating an illegal gambling business through its prediction market platform and seeking at least $36 billion in damages.

According to Jinshi reports, the World Trade Organization has announced that Brazil has filed a dispute resolution lawsuit regarding the U.S. tariff increase issue.

According to Cointelegraph, Australia's internet regulator has filed a lawsuit against Telegram, accusing it of failing to remove content that supports terrorism.Previously, Russia accused Telegram founder Pavel Durov of assisting terrorist activities and issued an international arrest warrant.

Bitcoin News posted on the X platform stating that a lawsuit accuses BitMEX of seizing 622 bitcoins through server freezes and internal trading before its closure.

According to INBi, consultant François Garcin, who assisted in building MARA's business in France, filed a lawsuit against MARA Holdings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 22, seeking over 11 million euros in compensation.Garcin claims that after MARA terminated the contract on March 6, 2026, it failed to pay 2.4 million euros in consulting fees and approximately 5.92 million euros in success commissions (based on 4% of the 148 million euro investment in Exaion). Exaion is a subsidiary of EDF, and this investment accounts for 64% of the capital for the relevant project.Garcin's previous tasks included recruiting former Engie CEO Gérard Mestrallet, obtaining an invitation to the Choose France summit, and arranging a meeting with former President François Hollande, among others.

According to Cointelegraph, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of Thailand has filed a criminal complaint against the digital asset exchange Bitkub Online and two former directors, Sakolkorn Sakavee and Thaweesap Rawan, accusing them of involvement in false reports related to a cyber attack in 2021.The SEC stated that a cyber attack in May 2021 resulted in the theft of 16 digital assets from Bitkub, valued at approximately 1.7 billion Thai Baht, or about 50 million USD. The regulatory agency claimed that Bitkub subsequently replenished the stolen assets before October 31, 2021, but the daily net capital flow reports submitted from May 10 to October 30, 2021, did not accurately reflect the reduction in assets.Bitkub stated on the X platform that the case stems from disclosure decisions made after the cyber attack in May 2021 and is not an act of fraud. The exchange claimed that the delay in disclosing the compromised wallet was to avoid a bank run, and the co-founder subsequently purchased an equivalent amount of digital assets to cover the stolen funds, with no financial losses incurred by the company or its clients. Bitkub was established in 2018 and is one of Thailand's major cryptocurrency exchanges. Bitkub's parent company is considering a potential initial public offering, including the possibility of listing in Hong Kong.

On the day BitMEX announced its shutdown, BKX Services Inc. and David Namdar filed a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York Federal Court, accusing the platform of manipulating user forced liquidations and stealing Bitcoin collateral by using insider trading privileges and server freezing tactics. The plaintiffs claim a total loss of approximately 623 BTC, with BKX losing at least 305.81 BTC and Namdar losing over 316.85 BTC, seeking the return of Bitcoin and damages.The complaint states that BitMEX allowed clients to use up to 100 times leverage, while forcibly liquidating positions when the collateral value was still about twice the loss, with the remaining Bitcoin being included in the platform's insurance fund, allowing BitMEX to profit from it. This lawsuit traces back to relevant transactions starting from July 23, 2018, while a similar case from 2020 was voluntarily withdrawn on June 30, 2025.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal stated that Coinbase has reached a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, with the SEC agreeing to pay $150,000 and amend its record-keeping policies. The lawsuit revealed that the SEC lost nearly a year’s worth of communications from former Chairman Gary Gensler and other senior officials during the peak enforcement period in the cryptocurrency industry.Coinbase had previously requested documents from the SEC regarding how it applies securities laws to digital assets, but the request was denied, leading to a lawsuit that received court support. The SEC claimed that some text messages were lost due to an automatic data deletion process. Grewal pointed out that the SEC has imposed billions of dollars in fines on financial institutions for similar record-keeping issues.In February of this year, Coinbase also reached a settlement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation regarding another Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Coinbase stated that this lawsuit revealed that the FDIC had instructed nearly twenty banks to suspend cryptocurrency-related activities since 2022, which subsequently led to congressional hearings and resulted in a court ruling that the FDIC violated federal law.Grewal stated that both lawsuits revolve around government transparency and due process, emphasizing that the American public has the right to know whether regulatory agencies are restricting legitimate cryptocurrency businesses from accessing banking services through non-public means.

Galaxy Research Director Alex Thorn posted on the X platform revealing that there has been a significant development in the case of abandoned bitcoins, where "Noah Doe" is attempting to obtain ownership of Satoshi Nakamoto's bitcoins through legal proceedings. The Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) has officially applied to intervene in the case as a defendant and seeks to push the court to dismiss all lawsuits.It is reported that BPI, represented by the law firm White & Case, has not only applied to intervene in the case but has also submitted a proposed defense document, 15 active defenses, and plans to file a motion to dismiss.Alex Thorn disclosed that BPI claims it is qualified to intervene because the organization has long self-custodied a portion of its bitcoin reserves intended for indefinite holding. The plaintiff's theory that "long-term inactivity constitutes abandonment" could potentially include similar assets in future lawsuits. If the legal logic of this case is ultimately supported by the court, it may set a precedent for depriving long-term self-custody users of asset ownership, making this lawsuit not only related to Satoshi Nakamoto's assets but also concerning the legal foundation of the entire bitcoin self-custody ecosystem.

According to CoinDesk, Wall Street market-making giant Citadel Securities has abandoned its U.S. trade secret lawsuit against crypto market maker Portofino Technologies and is instead seeking to recover nearly £6 million in arbitration compensation previously awarded through the UK bankruptcy process.On Wednesday, Citadel submitted documents to a U.S. court, jointly requesting the dismissal of the New York trade secret case with Portofino, stating that continuing the U.S. litigation lacked economic significance, as the judgment won in the London arbitration remains difficult to enforce.It is reported that this case lasted nearly three years, but the U.S. litigation ultimately did not make a substantive ruling on the trade secret allegations previously raised by Citadel. Citadel emphasized that the withdrawal of the lawsuit is not due to a lack of basis for its trade secret claims, but rather because the company has already achieved a victory in another London arbitration proceeding.