Ninth Circuit Revives Data Breach Lawsuit Against 3Commas
On Monday, March 2, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order reversing a lower court’s decision regarding a class action lawsuit against 3Commas Technologies OÜ, an Estonian cryptocurrency software company.
The plaintiffs, led by Charles Freeman, are suing 3Commas over a data breach. The central issue on appeal was whether the California court had personal jurisdiction over the Estonian company.
The Ninth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Eric D. Miller, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, concluded that the district court does have jurisdiction over 3Commas. The court found that 3Commas purposefully directed its activities toward California, thus establishing minimum contacts necessary for jurisdiction.
The court’s reasoning hinged on several key factors. 3Commas actively solicited California investors and sold its services to California residents. The company also contracted with Cloudflare, a California-based data server, to maintain its website, agreeing to California law and forum selection in that contract. Furthermore, 3Commas’s website privacy policy specifically addressed California privacy rights, indicating an intentional focus on California consumers. The policy collected financial and geographical data from users, including IP addresses that could identify user locations.
The court emphasized that 3Commas was aware that at least some of its users were California residents, tracking user IP addresses and charging value-added tax based on user location. Resolving factual disputes in favor of the plaintiffs, the court determined that 3Commas knowingly engaged with and profited from a California audience.
The Ninth Circuit also determined that exercising jurisdiction over 3Commas in California would be fair and just. The court cited 3Commas’s purposeful business activities in California, its existing agreement to resolve disputes with Cloudflare in California, and California’s strong interest in providing redress for its residents who have been injured.
The court also noted that litigating in California would not undermine Estonian sovereignty, as the claims are based on U.S. state law. The case was reversed and remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
