Elderly Widow Fights Motion to Compel Arbitration in Bitcoin ATM Scam Lawsuit

On Monday, July 1, 2024, Glenda J. Mooneyham filed a response in opposition to a motion by Bitcoin Depot, Inc. and Bitcoin Depot Operating, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

The motion sought to compel arbitration in a proposed class action lawsuit relating to Mooneyham being scammed out of $30,000 through transactions at a Bitcoin ATM operated by the companies. Mooneyham alleges that she was coerced into depositing the money into the ATM after receiving a fraudulent phone call from someone posing as her bank’s fraud department.

Bitcoin Depot had moved to compel arbitration based on terms and conditions agreed to during the use of the ATM. However, Mooneyham argued in her response that she was under duress when purportedly agreeing to the terms due to the threats made during the phone call. She maintains that this negates any agreement and the entire contract is invalid and unenforceable as a result.

Mooneyham, a 73-year-old widow, claims that during the call she was told her bank accounts were hacked and at risk of being drained. The caller knew private details only her bank would know and insisted the only way to protect her money was by depositing it in a Bitcoin wallet using Bitcoin Depot’s ATM. Out of fear of losing her life savings, Mooneyham complied on two separate occasions in November 2023, losing a total of $30,000.

In her response, Mooneyham cited a recent similar case in Iowa where a court ruled another plaintiff was under duress in an analogous situation. She argued Bitcoin Depot is collaterally estopped from denying she faced duress based on the factual similarities. Bitcoin Depot is also accused of being aware their ATMs facilitate fraud but profiting from lack of oversight and safety measures that could prevent it.

Mooneyham’s complaint alleges causes of action including aiding financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult, negligence, product liability, and consumer protection violations. She is opposing the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing numerous viable claims and factual disputes preclude dismissal at this stage.

Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.