Class Action Against Bitcoin After Data Breach Should Continue, Plaintiffs Say
The group suing Bitcoin Depot over a 2024 data breach said Monday the company's motion seeking a dismissal is a tactical attempt to reduce negative publicity and liability. As such, the plaintiffs asked a federal court to let the case continue, a court document said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
The class action against Bitcoin said the company failed to properly safeguard personally identifiable information of more than 26,000 individuals, leading to a June 2024 data breach (see 2508060051). In October 2025, Bitcoin asked a federal court to drop the suit, arguing that there were no concrete harms (see 2510280028).
On Monday, the plaintiffs said Bitcoin's motion to dismiss asks the U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia to “unquestioningly accept" that "cybercrime is just an unavoidable part of modern life.”
However, though cybercriminals are an unfortunate reality, "the troubling trend of companies collecting and storing highly sensitive information of millions of Americans without properly securing this data” also is a reality, the plaintiffs argued.
Companies often go out of their way to minimize publicity and their liability for the harms that ensue, by downplaying the facts, delaying notification, and other tactics, the plaintiffs added. This is what Bitcoin did in this instance, they said.
Also, though Bitcoin “detected suspicious activity on its network” on June 23, 2024, and then conducted an “internal investigation” that ended July 18, 2024, it didn't issue notice letters to those impacted until July 2025.
In addition, Bitcoin hasn't released "any meaningful details of the breach,” leaving those affected “in the dark” about key details. For these reasons, the plaintiffs asked the district court to deny the motion to dismiss and allow case 1:25-cv-04317 to continue.