TL;DR
Crypto users seeking compensation after stolen assets were routed through Binance have gained a new legal avenue in the United States. The ruling challenges the idea that an exchange’s arbitration terms can automatically bind people who never opened an account.
David vs. Goliath. Today, David won.
We're a small firm. @binance is the largest crypto exchange in the world.
Our clients are innocent victims of crypto theft. Criminals drained their accounts, ran the money through @binance, and cashed out. Lives upended.
Then they got…
— David Silver (@dcsilver) August 20, 2026
The case centers on Binance, BAM Trading Services and founder Changpeng Zhao. Eight plaintiffs allege that hackers stole their cryptocurrency and moved the assets through Binance accounts before the funds disappeared. None of the plaintiffs had a Binance account or accepted its Terms of Use.
The plaintiffs argue that Binance failed to maintain adequate know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering controls, allowing allegedly stolen assets to move through its platform. Their claims include conversion, consumer protection violations and allegations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
A Florida district court previously ordered the dispute into arbitration, relying on equitable estoppel. That doctrine can sometimes bind a non-signatory to an arbitration clause when the person’s claims depend on a contract. The lower court’s decision became the central issue in the appeal.
The appeals court rejected that reasoning and ordered the lower court to vacate the arbitration decision. The plaintiffs can now continue pursuing their claims in federal court rather than being required to resolve them individually through arbitration.
The dispute carries additional significance because Binance previously faced major US compliance enforcement. In 2023, the exchange pleaded guilty to violations involving the Bank Secrecy Act, unlicensed money transmission and sanctions rules. Binance agreed to pay more than $4.3 billion across coordinated US resolutions and accepted enhanced compliance obligations.
For digital-asset users, the decision reinforces a basic principle of market accountability. Access to the courts should not automatically depend on accepting contractual terms from a platform that the alleged victim never used.
The plaintiffs also face a practical problem that is common in crypto theft cases. Digital assets can move between wallets and exchanges rapidly, making the ability to identify suspicious transactions and preserve potentially stolen funds especially important. That speed can make recovery efforts particularly difficult for victims.
Binance has continued operating as one of the largest global crypto exchanges, while the US regulatory environment has become more focused on clearer compliance standards.
