Last updated on January 2nd, 2018 at 12:00 am
On April 4, 2014, consumers filed a class action complaint against Defendant BF Labs Inc. (“BFL”) in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of Kyle Alexander and Dylan Symington.
In their Complaint, consumers alleged BFL violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”), were unjustly enriched, made negligent misrepresentations, and committed conversion. Specifically, consumers alleged BFL collected pre-payments for non-existent Bitcoin mining equipment, failed to ship Bitcoin mining equipment orders for which consumers have pre-paid, misrepresented the date such equipment would ship to customers, and profited from Bitcoin mining for BFL’s own benefit by using customers’ equipment without permission or authorization from customers. Consumers seek damages and a constructive trust to recover the purchase price, the value of bitcoins paid to BFL, the loss of use of bitcoins, the loss of use of mining equipment that was never received or not received in a timely manner, the loss of bitcoins mined by BFL using consumers’ equipment, the diminution in value of mining equipment, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages.
Between April and September of 2014, consumers engaged in significant discovery and were in the process of negotiating a class settlement on behalf of a putative class consisting of “all persons who pre-paid Defendant for Bitcoin mining equipment.” Consumers and BFL engaged in settlement negotiations and agreed to mediate on November 5, 2014. Trial is scheduled for January 4, 2016.
On September 15, 2014, the FTC filed a complaint in this Court against BFL and other individuals seeking temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief.
The attorneys have presented an argument to the court stating that the FTC action will cause damage to the separate actions of a class-action suit. The attorneys argument states:
The remedies sought by the FTC conflict with, frustrate, and deny remedies available to consumers, the FTC cannot adequately represent consumers’ interests. The FTC action, on its face, does not even purport to adequately represent consumers’ interests. The FTC is a civil enforcement agency that has no attorney-client relationship with consumers and has no fiduciary duty to act in any particular consumer’s best interests.
Here, consumers and the consumer class action provide the best mechanism to protect the interests of the consumer class. Consumers have already engaged in months of investigation and substantial progress in their suit. Procedurally, consumers already have survived the motion to dismiss stage, obtained a discovery framework (including a comprehensive protocol for the exchange of electronically stored information and a protective order), issued multiple subpoenas to non-parties (many of which are still pending), collected and reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of relevant documents, engaged in meaningful settlement discussions, modeled complex scenarios that may involve cash and non-cash benefits for class members (cash, bitcoin, hardware, hashing), selected and retained a mediator, scheduled a mediation date with BFL, and obtained a trial setting.
It is virtually without question the consumer class has a strong interest relating to the property and transaction that is the subject of this action and the disposition of this action will likely both impair and impede the consumer class’s ability to protect its interest. The FTC’s desire to exclude the consumer class from having a voice in this action is at best, puzzling and demonstrates the existing parties to this action, will not adequately represent the interest of the consumer class. This Court should grant consumers’ Motion to Intervene and hear from people who actually paid for mining equipment, who actually engage in Bitcoin mining, and whose legal rights and property are actually at issue.
The attorneys state they are hoping to be heard and that they believe the FTC is not acting in the best interest of consumers in this case.
Counsel for the FTC indicated the FTC objects to the motion. Counsel for the receiver indicated he was not able to take a place until consulting with the receiver and the FTC. Butterfly Labs does not object to this motion as it could result in the FTC case taking a backseat to the already pending consumer class-action under which Butterfly Labs is most likely to come out more favorably versus the FTC actions.
This case continues to grow and become further complex as more parties seeking to protect themselves are likely to file more motions with the court.