Crypto.com User Must Arbitrate $800K Bitcoin Loss Claim
On Monday, December 29, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Foris DAX, Inc. d/b/a Crypto.com’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in a case brought by Plaintiff Peter Bekkerman. The case, presided over by District Judge Jamel K. Semper, revolves around allegations that Crypto.com failed to protect Bekkerman’s account, leading to a significant loss of Bitcoin.
Bekkerman filed the original complaint on January 23, 2025, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, Law Division, alleging violations of the Electronic Fund Transfers Act (EFTA), the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and common law negligence. Crypto.com subsequently removed the case to the federal court on March 21, 2025, and filed the motion to compel arbitration on April 11, 2025, citing an arbitration clause within its terms of service.
The court’s decision hinged on the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement within Crypto.com’s terms of service, which users agree to when signing up through the Crypto.com phone application. According to court documents, new users are prompted to agree to the platform’s “Terms & Conditions and Privacy Notice” via a hyperlink. The terms explicitly state that completing the sign-up process constitutes a binding contract, including an agreement to resolve disputes through binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA), with a 30-day opt-out period.
Bekkerman claimed that between May 31, 2023, and April 30, 2024, approximately 7.84197693 Bitcoin, valued at around $801,591.20, was withdrawn from his account through unauthorized third-party transactions. He further alleged that Crypto.com denied his dispute claim, asserting the transactions were initiated on his end and that the company acted in accordance with its terms of service.
Judge Semper, in his opinion, determined that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable under Florida law, which governs the terms. The court categorized Crypto.com’s agreement as either a “clickwrap” or “browsewrap” agreement, both of which are generally enforceable, particularly when the hyperlink to the terms and conditions is conspicuous. The court found that Crypto.com provided clear notice of its terms, with the hyperlink prominently displayed during the sign-up process.
The court dismissed Bekkerman’s argument that an amendment provision within the terms made the entire agreement illusory. The amendment clause allows Crypto.com to update or amend the terms, with changes taking effect immediately upon posting on the Crypto.com App or website. The court noted that continued use of the app after such changes indicates acceptance of the updated terms, and users who do not wish to be bound by the changes should discontinue using the app. Judge Semper referenced similar cases where amendment provisions were deemed valid when coupled with notice procedures and the option for users to reject the changes.
Ultimately, the court concluded that Bekkerman’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, which covers “any and all claims for relief and theories of liability” arising from the relationship between the user and Crypto.com. The court therefore granted Crypto.com’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the current proceedings.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
