• A judge has ruled that Apple is immune from the crypto wallet app lawsuit

  • A federal judge in California has found that Apple Inc. is immune from the “Toast Plus” class action case, in which a bogus cryptocurrency wallet program was available on the Apple App Store. After downloading the phony program and losing some cryptocurrency, a client sued the tech giant.

    Apple is not liable for any losses incurred as a result of a customer downloading a bogus cryptocurrency app.

    Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California decided that Apple Inc. is not liable in a class action complaint alleging that a fake bitcoin wallet app was accessible for download through the company’s app store.

    Plaintiff Hadona Diep, a cryptocurrency investor, accused Apple of hosting counterfeit mobile software that resembles Toast Plus, a legitimate XRP wallet program. The bogus software has the same name and branding as the actual one. In September of last year, she launched a class action complaint against the Tech behemoth in federal court in Maryland; the case was relocated to the Northern District of California in December.

    According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff downloaded the fraudulent app from the Apple App Store in January 2018 and used it to execute a transfer of roughly 474 XRP coins from the crypto exchange Bittrex to a Rippex wallet.

    Rippex was shut down in February 2018, however, the complainant was still able to access her funds using other wallets. In March 2021, the complainant “connected her private XRP key, or a seed phrase, into Toast Plus.” When she checked her Toast Plus account in August 2021, she realized that her account had been canceled in March 2021 and that her deposited XRP currency had vanished.

    Diep alleged that Apple hosting the phony crypto wallet app cost him more than $5,000 in damages. Ryumei Nagao, her co-plaintiff, claims he lost $500,000.

    Judge Hamilton agreed with Apple that Apple cannot be held accountable for the phony app. According to Hamilton’s Sept. 2 order, Apple is protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because it is deemed a publisher of content given by another content provider rather than a creator.

    The judge also agreed with Apple that Diep did not adequately plead claims under the Consumer Privacy Acts of both California and Maryland because she did not disclose specific specifics about the time, place, and content of the claimed deceptive representations.

    Furthermore, Diep’s claims must be dismissed since, according to the judgment, Apple is not liable for damages deriving from or related to the usage of third-party apps.

    What's your reaction?