- Two OpenSea users dismiss class-action lawsuit following arbitration order by Florida judge
- Plaintiffs aimed to create a framework for NFT marketplace regulation and monitoring
- OpenSea maintains arbitration for claims is required under user agreements
Two OpenSea users dismissed their lawsuit against the NFT marketplace after a judge ruled that their claims must be settled in arbitration. Anthony Shnayderman and Itai Bronshtein, who had filed a class-action suit accusing OpenSea of selling unregistered securities, voluntarily withdrew the case in a Florida federal court on Nov. 7. Judge Cecilia Altonaga’s decision allowed OpenSea to move forward with arbitration, stating that both plaintiffs had agreed to OpenSea’s terms requiring dispute resolution outside of court.
OpenSea argued in October that the plaintiffs’ claims should be handled through an arbitrator, as specified in its terms of use. OpenSea stated it would appeal if arbitration was denied.
Source: CourtListener
Plaintiffs Aim to Regulate NFT Market Amid Dismissal
Adam Moskowitz, the plaintiffs’ attorney, expressed disappointment over the dismissal, emphasizing their goal was to establish a regulated marketplace for NFTs amid evolving political and legislative landscapes. Moskowitz noted the intent was to build a structure allowing industry experts to address the NFT sector’s regulatory gaps.
Despite the dismissal, Moskowitz suggested OpenSea should play a role in overseeing NFTs on its platform, especially given the marketplace’s direct profits from these transactions. He added that the firm would continue investigating ways to support individuals affected by failed NFTs and other digital assets.
SEC Actions Add Pressure on NFT Regulation
The case’s claims cited OpenSea’s disclosure of a Wells notice from the SEC, hinting at possible regulatory enforcement actions. Shnayderman and Bronshtein argued this notice, along with SEC rulings against NFT projects like Stoner Cats 2 and Impact Theory, reflected the legal uncertainties around NFTs. OpenSea has consistently refuted these claims, labeling the lawsuit as “baseless.”
