California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to sue online providers

Re:California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to ... by pm_me_ur_fullz on Sunday April 12, 2020 @05:36PM (#22851174)

A few years ago Silicon Valley Bank wouldn't open an account for an entity with blockchain in the name, no matter what it actually did.

I can use this ruling, doesn't matter how skittish their compliance officer is nor the lack of clarity from their federal regulators. Should be a good time and accelerant!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to ... by cjensen on Sunday April 12, 2020 @05:41PM (#22851202)

Yes and no. This means you can sue despite not being a customer. It does not mean your suit will succeed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to ... by pm_me_ur_fullz on Sunday April 12, 2020 @06:25PM (#22851461)

I understand, it just won't be dismissed for "not having standing" on the plaintiff's side.

Progress!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to ... by ThePowerOfFuet on Sunday April 12, 2020 @05:39PM (#22851190)

>and accelerant

[ Parent | on HN ]