A federal judge in New York ruled that plaintiffs failed to establish the required legal link between Binance’s conduct and dozens of terrorist attacks cited in the case.
A US federal court has dismissed a lawsuit accusing cryptocurrency exchange Binance of providing material support to terrorist organisations, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal connection between the company’s actions and the attacks cited in the case.
In a 62-page opinion issued on 6 March, Judge Jeannette Vargas of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Binance’s motion to dismiss claims brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA).
The case, Troell et al. v. Binance Holdings Limited et al., was filed by 535 plaintiffs, comprising victims and relatives of victims of 64 separate terrorist attacks that occurred between 2016 and July 2024.
According to the complaint, the attacks were carried out by several groups designated as foreign terrorist organisations, including Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Kataib Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Plaintiffs alleged that Binance and related defendants had provided material support to these organisations by allowing them to access the exchange and conduct financial transactions.
“This dismissal is a complete vindication of all false allegations,” said Eleanor Hughes, Binance’s General Counsel. “The court has unambiguously rejected the false and damaging narrative that Binance assisted terrorists.”
“We have always maintained that these claims were without merit, and today’s ruling confirms that. We will continue to defend ourselves aggressively against any litigation or reporting that misrepresents who we are and how we operate.”
Failure to establish causal link
In her opinion, Vargas concluded that the complaint did not adequately demonstrate the legal relationship required to establish liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The ruling states that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently show the “requisite nexus between Binance’s conduct and the terrorist attacks at issue,” a requirement for claims brought under the statute.
As a result, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The court also noted that Binance’s alleged conduct involved providing access to its exchange in the same manner as it did for other account holders.
Claims dismissed but amendment permitted
Although the claims were dismissed, the court granted the plaintiffs the opportunity to revise their complaint.
In the decision’s concluding section, Vargas wrote that any amended complaint must be filed within 60 days of the opinion’s filing.
The ruling also meant the court did not need to consider additional arguments raised by some defendants regarding personal jurisdiction.
“Because the Court has dismissed all claims on the merits, it does not reach the personal jurisdiction arguments,” the opinion states.
Case background
The lawsuit named Binance Holdings Limited and several related entities, as well as former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao, among the defendants.
Plaintiffs argued the cryptocurrency platforms enabled terrorist organisations to move funds through digital asset transactions and that the exchange’s services contributed to the financial ecosystem supporting the attacks cited in the complaint.
The case forms part of a broader series of lawsuits filed in US courts in recent years seeking to apply the Anti-Terrorism Act’s secondary liability provisions to technology platforms and financial intermediaries.
The decision represents the latest judicial ruling examining whether digital platforms can be held legally responsible for terrorism-related activity conducted through their services.
