Christopher R. Elder, P.C.

A cryptocurrency advocate has sued Andreas M. Antonopoulos Inc. in Denver federal court, claiming the company exploited his name and trademark to promote digital-asset trading “boot camps” that deceived customers. Christopher P. Beall, a shareholder in Denver and New York at Recht Kornfeld, represents the plaintiffs, Andreas M. Antonopoulos and aAntonop Operations LLC, in the lawsuit against the defendants, Andreas M. Antonopoulos Inc., Olivier Seguin and an unidentified Jane Doe. “This is unusual in the sense of using the client’s actual given name as the name to register as the corporation,” said Beall, who previously served as Colorado’s deputy secretary of state. “It is a problem in Colorado and many states for fraudulent registration of corporations on state business registries to register a company at an address that is not the business.” Antonopoulos—an author, educator and longtime commentator on blockchain technology—has written several books, taught university-level courses and appeared as an expert witness in regulatory proceedings worldwide. His company, aAntonop Operations LLC, owns the registered “AANTONOP” word mark and a registered design mark used to identify the plaintiffs’ educational services. In July 2024, Seguin incorporated Andreas M. Antonopoulos Inc. with the Colorado secretary of state, listing a Denver address and naming himself as incorporator and registered agent. The entity later failed to file its first annual report and is currently listed as noncompliant on the state’s registry, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs said in the complaint that they first learned in March that Antonopoulos’ name and registered marks were being used to market online investment and trading boot camps claiming to teach his “trading strategies and precise trading signals.” They responded by posting a notice on their website clarifying that Antonopoulos does not provide investment or trading advice. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs alleged in the complaint that these unauthorized boot camps continue to be promoted through WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram groups, often involving hundreds of participants. One recent solicitation advertised “Dean Antonopoulos’s 8th Online Bootcamp,” according to the filing. Now, the case is pending before U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak of the District of Colorado. The plaintiffs assert claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, common-law misappropriation and violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. They also seek injunctive relief to halt the boot camps and prevent further use of Antonopoulos’ name. “Without the relief requested here, not only will Mr. Antonopoulos’ reputation continue to be harmed,” the plaintiffs alleged, “but countless future consumers will suffer even further financial harm as the Defendants continue to market their deceptive online cryptocurrency ‘bootcamps’ and seminars.”

Nov 21

2 min

An information technology company cannot be held liable for a data breach exposing the health information of patients of a unit of medical device maker Zoll Medical Corp, the First Circuit ruled, because the two companies did not have a business relationship permitting them to hold one responsible for another's conduct. In a published opinion Thursday, the panel unanimously cleared Barracuda Networks Inc., turning away arguments made by Axis Insurance Co. in its derivative capacity as Zoll Services LLC's assignee. Axis claimed that a lower court should have focused on the nature of the relationship between the businesses before handing Barracuda a summary judgment win. But U.S. Circuit Judge Gustavo A. Gelpí noted that Massachusetts law does recognize responsibility in certain circumstances, including employer-employee, principal-agent, manufacturer-retailer, and some independent contractor relationships. "Axis must have presented sufficient evidence that would tend to show that Zoll and Barracuda had any of these types of relationships," Judge Gelpí wrote. "Axis presented no such evidence." Chelmsford, Massachusetts-based Zoll hit Barracuda with a suit in 2020, claiming that one of its employees in 2018 left open a data port during a standard data migration. The mistake let unauthorized parties gain access to patients' health information for about seven weeks before anyone noticed, according to the suit. Fusion LLC, another IT company that had worked with both Barracuda and Zoll, also brought claims. The First Circuit found that Zoll and Barracuda did not have the type of relationship that can sustain a claim for equitable indemnification. It also found that Axis, a subrogee of Fusion, had not shown any right in the parties' original equipment manufacturer agreement that would suggest Fusion is entitled to anything in the event of a breach. "The OEM is limited to the creation of a non-exclusive license to market and resell Barracuda's emailing services to Fusion customers," Judge Gelpí wrote. "Although Fusion could have negotiated for a clause granting it assurances or protections in the event of a breach, we see nothing in the contract providing those assurances or protections." In 2024, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton granted the California-based cloud security and data protection company summary judgment on a handful of claims, closing out the case. The remaining claims at issue when the case closed — Zoll's claim of equitable indemnification and Fusion's claims of breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith — were assigned to Fusion's insurer, Axis. The judge's order, with which the First Circuit agreed, said Barracuda had acted as an independent contractor for Zoll — not a close enough relationship to establish derivative or vicarious liability. Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to comment requests Friday. Barracuda is represented by Joseph L. Demeo, Christopher P. Silva, Michael R. Stanley and Samuel B. Goodwin of Demeo LLP. Axis is represented by Mark S. Resnick of ResnickLaw LLC. The case is Axis Insurance Co. v. Barracuda Networks Inc. et al., case number 24-1920, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Nov 21

2 min

Changes are in store for Georgia lawyers required to participate in continuing legal education. Thanks to amendments approved by the Supreme Court of Georgia, State Bar of Georgia members' required instructional hours will shift from a dozen annually to 18 hours biennially, beginning Jan. 1, 2026. Plus: In addition to updated reporting and trial hours requirements, an exemption is now available for active members who have been in good standing for at least 40 years. Rules Changes Currently, Georgia lawyers admitted to the state bar must complete 12 hours of continuing legal education each year, with at least one hour dedicated to Ethics and another to Professionalism training. Those numbers will increase once amendments approved by the high court become effective on Dec 4. Georgia attorneys will now have two years to complete 18 CLE hours. However, requirements have increased to at least three Ethics hours and at least two Professionalism hours per biennial compliance period. READ: Supreme Court of Georgia Order Approving Amendments In a Facebook post announcing the changes, the State Bar of Georgia highlighted that the first compliance period would run Jan. 1, 2026, through Dec. 31, 2027. With the extended CLE compliance period came additional perks. The Supreme Court of Georgia approved the elimination of the trial hours requirement for trial lawyers. The high court also greenlit an exemption for active lawyers who've reached 40 years of bar membership without being suspended or disbarred for Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct violations. Christopher Twyman, Cox, Byington, Twyman & Johnson, LLP. The amendments also called for additional requirements, including that lawyers certify their completion of CLE hours. "Lawyers will attest on their online CLE transcript that the CLE hours attended were hours in the lawyer's area of practice or in an area that will benefit their practice and clients," State Bar of Georgia Communications Director Jennifer R. Mason clarified. State Bar of Georgia President Christopher P. Twyman said the amendments represented "a significant change to the current CLE requirement process." However, Twyman ensured the state bar would provide "as much information as possible" ahead of the rules New Year's Day implementation to ensure its membership of 55,000 are "prepared for the new procedures." "Our goal is to provide information in a manner that is easily accessible and understandable, ensuring all members are well-prepared for the shift in process and procedure," Twyman said. 2025 Compliance Deadline Active lawyers who have yet to complete their existing 2025 CLE requirement of 12 hours—including one Ethics and one Professionalism hour—have until March 31, 2026 to do so. Upon completing their 2025 CLE hours requirement, attorneys will then observe the new CLE rules with the biennial compliance period ending Dec. 31, 2027.

Dec 2

2 min

An information technology company cannot be held liable for a data breach exposing the health information of patients of a unit of medical device maker Zoll Medical Corp, the First Circuit ruled, because the two companies did not have a business relationship permitting them to hold one responsible for another's conduct. In a published opinion Thursday, the panel unanimously cleared Barracuda Networks Inc., turning away arguments made by Axis Insurance Co. in its derivative capacity as Zoll Services LLC's assignee. Axis claimed that a lower court should have focused on the nature of the relationship between the businesses before handing Barracuda a summary judgment win. But U.S. Circuit Judge Gustavo A. Gelpí noted that Massachusetts law does recognize responsibility in certain circumstances, including employer-employee, principal-agent, manufacturer-retailer, and some independent contractor relationships. "Axis must have presented sufficient evidence that would tend to show that Zoll and Barracuda had any of these types of relationships," Judge Gelpí wrote. "Axis presented no such evidence." Chelmsford, Massachusetts-based Zoll hit Barracuda with a suit in 2020, claiming that one of its employees in 2018 left open a data port during a standard data migration. The mistake let unauthorized parties gain access to patients' health information for about seven weeks before anyone noticed, according to the suit. Fusion LLC, another IT company that had worked with both Barracuda and Zoll, also brought claims. The First Circuit found that Zoll and Barracuda did not have the type of relationship that can sustain a claim for equitable indemnification. It also found that Axis, a subrogee of Fusion, had not shown any right in the parties' original equipment manufacturer agreement that would suggest Fusion is entitled to anything in the event of a breach. "The OEM is limited to the creation of a non-exclusive license to market and resell Barracuda's emailing services to Fusion customers," Judge Gelpí wrote. "Although Fusion could have negotiated for a clause granting it assurances or protections in the event of a breach, we see nothing in the contract providing those assurances or protections." In 2024, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton granted the California-based cloud security and data protection company summary judgment on a handful of claims, closing out the case. The remaining claims at issue when the case closed — Zoll's claim of equitable indemnification and Fusion's claims of breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith — were assigned to Fusion's insurer, Axis. The judge's order, with which the First Circuit agreed, said Barracuda had acted as an independent contractor for Zoll — not a close enough relationship to establish derivative or vicarious liability. Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to comment requests Friday. Barracuda is represented by Joseph L. Demeo, Christopher P. Silva, Michael R. Stanley and Samuel B. Goodwin of Demeo LLP. Axis is represented by Mark S. Resnick of ResnickLaw LLC. The case is Axis Insurance Co. v. Barracuda Networks Inc. et al., case number 24-1920, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Nov 21

2 min

A California federal judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction on Monday blocking prediction platform Kalshi and Robinhood from offering their sports event contracts that some Native American tribes allege constitute illegal gambling, saying they have not shown how the platforms are subject to a statute protecting tribal gaming. The order from U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley rejected the tribes' arguments seeking the injunction under the Lanham Act or Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, finding they had not identified any false or misleading advertisements published by the defendants or shown a likelihood of prevailing on the argument that IGRA governs the sports contracts in question. The judge wrote that IGRA, which was passed in 1988, does not address the online gaming activity the tribes allege the defendants are engaged in, but that the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act does govern "internet gaming that can be accessed in locations where such gaming is unlawful, including Indian lands." Judge Corley also said the Commodity Exchange Act appears to govern the claim — and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has "exclusive jurisdiction" to regulate commodities and futures on commission-designated exchanges. "Plaintiffs point to no applicable exception," the judge said. "Additionally, while plaintiffs argue the event contracts are presumptively unlawful under the act, 'presumption' and any variation of that word are absent from the Commodity Exchange Act, its special rule for event contracts or commission regulations for self-certification." "The Commodity Exchange Act's special rule provides 'the commission may determine' event contracts are 'contrary to the public interest,'" the judge continued. "Congress did not say courts could so determine or that the commission must make a presumption. Rather, the only enforcement mechanism belongs to the commission, which 'may determine that an event contract 'be subject to a 90-day review' period during which the contract listing is suspended pending a final determination." The tribes sued Kalshi and Robinhood Markets Inc. in July, alleging the companies' "event contracts" — which allow users to "predict" the outcome of sporting events — are actually just unregulated sports gambling that violates federal, state and tribal law. The tribes, including the Blue Lake Rancheria and Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, sought the injunction in September seeking to prevent Kalshi from offering sports contracts on their lands, arguing Kalshi's advertising is illegal and detracts from the tribes' casinos. Event contracts typically pose a binary, yes-or-no question regarding whether the underlying event will occur, according to the suit. The contracts are governed by the Commodity Exchange Act, according to the suit. Aside from the IGRA and Lanham Act claims, the tribes also brought five claims that were not the subject of the preliminary injunction request. The Lanham Act claim focused on two of Kalshi's advertisements, including one that said "sports betting [is] legal in all 50 states on Kalshi," which the tribes argued is "literally or facially false" due to federal and state prohibitions on sports gambling. A Kalshi social media post challenged by the tribes said, "Really hope kids in high school still do this," with a photo of "four screens playing basketball games," and they argued it implies people under 18 can gamble on sports. The judge wrote that Kalshi's advertisement about all 50 states "is merely stating an opinion its product is legal, and given multiple courts have agreed with it, plaintiffs have not shown the opinion is literally false or that Kalshi lacks a good faith belief in the opinion's truth." The judge cited several cases with decisions that went in Kalshi's favor on the topic, including an April ruling by a Nevada federal judge that held the state cannot prohibit online trading platform KalshiEx LLC from allowing users to place bets on the outcome of sports events and elections because both are currently permitted under federal law. On the post about kids in high school, the judge wrote the tribes did not allege a competitive injury "because neither plaintiffs nor Kalshi allow patrons under 18 years of age to gamble." On the IGRA claim, the judge said the court has jurisdiction over such claims only if plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin "Class III gaming activity located on Indian lands and conducted in violation of any tribal-state compact" that is in effect, and the tribes did not show a likelihood of success on the merits. "Since it is undisputed Kalshi is a registered entity under the Commodity Exchange Act, and that its transactions are conducted on the Kalshi internet site, its internet contracts are not bets or wagers under the UIGEA and therefore do not constitute 'unlawful internet gambling' even if the contracts are received, placed or transmitted from persons on Indian lands where internet gambling is illegal," the judge wrote. According to the ruling, before listing a contract on a Commodity Futures Trading Commission exchange, a designated contract maker can request and receive approval from the commission or self-certify its contracts are lawful. Kalshi self-certified the sports contracts at issue in the suit, the judge wrote. "As a final note, the court does not take lightly plaintiffs' concerns about the effects Kalshi's activities might have on tribal sovereignty and the tribes' finances," the judge wrote. "Indeed, by self-certifying the legality of its event contracts in way that insulates its activities from judicial review, Kalshi may have found a way around prohibitions on interstate gambling that were created with the tribes' best interest in mind." "But, on the record currently before the court, and in light of the Commodity Exchange Act's self-certification process, plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing a likelihood of success on their IGRA claim," the judge wrote. "We welcome today's decision denying the plaintiff tribes' motion for a preliminary injunction. Kalshi's nationwide, federally regulated exchange offers all users a fair and transparent way to trade event contracts," a Kalshi spokesperson said in a written statement on Monday. "Casinos located on tribal lands offer their customers a fundamentally different product." Counsel for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Kalshi is represented by Grant R. Mainland, Joshua B. Sterling, Karen Wong and Olivia S. Choe of Milbank LLP and Christopher C. Wheeler and Dylan M. Silva of Farella Braun & Martel LLP. Robinhood is represented by Mark R. Conrad of Conrad Metlitzky Kane LLP, Mithun Mansinghani of Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP, and Antony L. Ryan, Kevin J. Orsini and Brittany L. Sukiennik of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP. The case is Blue Lake Rancheria et al. v. Kalshi Inc. et al., case number 3:25-cv-06162, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Nov 10

5 min