Depositing Cryptocurrency Assets: A Cautionary Tale on Clickwrap Agreements

Mike Richardson

Share Post:

Earlier this year, a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York issued a startling ruling in the bankruptcy case of In re Celsius Network LLC, et al., Case No. 22-10964 (MG).  The dispute involved cryptocurrency owners who deposited their assets (such as stablecoins, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), central bank currencies, and security tokens) into Celsius’s “Earn Accounts” that allowed Celsius to use those funds to generate yields across various “on-chain” and “off-chain” investment strategies.  At the time Celsius filed bankruptcy, there were more than 600,000 Earn Account holders affected. Their assets totaled approximately $4.2 billion. 

A large-scale dispute arose over who could claim the assets in the Earn Accounts as their property.  If the bankruptcy court rules that they are the account holders’ property, then those individuals and entities will fare quite well in the bankruptcy proceedings from a distribution standpoint.  If they are not the account holders’ property, then they are Celsius’s property (and its bankruptcy estate).  As property of the estate, assets are used to pay creditors at the front of the priority line – which does not include the account holders.  Rather, that account holders are general unsecured creditors, which often means pennies on the dollar (or less) of the claim amount.   

On January 4, 2022, the bankruptcy court issued a ruling that held, in part, that the Earn Accounts were property of Celsius’s bankruptcy estate, and therefore Celsius could sell those assets to pay for administrative expenses, like legal fees.  In making this ruling, the bankruptcy court analyzed the enforceability of so-called “clickwrap” agreements in which users manifest assent by clicking a button confirming that they accept the terms.  Clickwrap agreements do not necessarily require the account holder to actually view the terms.  In most jurisdictions, clickwrap agreements are valid and enforceable contracts.

Celsius’s account holders were required to click through Terms of Use that included the following language:

In consideration for the rewards earned on your Account and the use of our Services, you grant Celsius the right, subject to applicable law, without further notice to you, to hold the Digital Assets available in your account in Celsius’ name or in another name, and to pledge, re-pledge, hypothecate, rehypothecate, sell, lend, or otherwise transfer or use any amount of such Assets, separately or together with other property, with all attendant rights of ownership.


In the event that Celsius becomes bankrupt, enters liquidation or is otherwise unable to repay its obligations, any [Assets] used in the Earn Service or as collateral under the Borrow Service may not be recoverable, and you may not have any legal remedies or rights in connection with Celsius’ obligations to you other than your rights as a creditor of Celsius under any applicable laws.

There are a multitude of colorable arguments supporting a determination that these clauses are unenforceable as a matter of state and federal law, including that (i) they lack consideration, (ii) they are unconscionable; (iii) they are ambiguous because they use terms like “loans” or “lending”; (iv) Celsius failed to uphold its fiduciary duties under the contract; (v) account holders lacked the requisite intent to transfer ownership; (vi) Celsius fraudulently misrepresented its product and finances; and (vii) Celsius operated illegally by violating the securities laws of several states.  Nonetheless, the bankruptcy court disagreed and held that these terms unambiguously transferred title and ownership of the Earn Accounts from account holders to Celsius, and that the account holders should have been aware that they were being bound by those terms.

It appears that disputes like this will play out again and again and the issue of who owns deposits in cryptocurrency accounts is unsettled.  What is clear from this initial ruling is that, in the cryptocurrency context, a bankruptcy court will enforce clickwrap agreements that may be unenforceable in other circumstances.  



Mike Richardson joined Milgrom & Daskam as a Partner in May 2022.  His practice focuses on litigation and bankruptcy matters.  He has represented parties on either side of real estate disputes, breach of contract actions, oil and gas disputes, fraudulent transfer claims, and breach of fiduciary duty claims.  Mike has also represented debtors, chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees, and other matters involving financially distressed parties reorganizing under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

More Articles

Artificial Intelligence

Potential Issues and Liabilities of Using Generative AI for Legal Document Drafting 

In recent years, the legal industry has witnessed a significant transformation, with the integration of technology and artificial intelligence (AI) into various aspects of legal practice, and while it’s unlikely that AI will kill all the lawyers, one notable advancement is the use of large language models of generative AI to draft legal documents, even by non-lawyers. While this technology offers several advantages, such as increased efficiency and reduced costs, it also brings forth a host of potential issues and liabilities that both legal professionals and non-lawyers must carefully consider. In this article, we’ll explore these concerns and provide insights into mitigating associated risks.

Read More »
Business & Corporate Law

Oversold and Underwhelmed: Why the Ripple Decision Doesn’t Live Up to the Hype

If you follow the crypto space and read the headlines about the recent decision in SEC vs. Ripple Labs, Inc., you will be grossly disappointed by the delta between hype and reality. Crypto-promoters will tell you that Ripple “won,” that tokens are not securities, and that crypto can now go on to create the New Eden that will bring freedom and prosperity to everyone. Everyone except for the teeth-gnashing demons who work at the Securities and Exchange Commission, a.k.a. the Anti-Christ.

Read More »
Real Estate Law

Psychedelic Healing Centers in Colorado: Are Landlords Prepared?

In November 2022, Colorado voters approved Proposition 122, known as the Natural Medicine Health Act of 2022 (NMHA). This legislation decriminalized the personal use and possession of certain psychedelic substances, including psilocybin and psilocin mushrooms. Additionally, the NMHA established the legal foundation for healing centers – places where adults may consume and experience the effects of regulated natural medicines (such as mushrooms) under the supervision of licensed facilitators. Given the nascent stage of the psychedelic industry in Colorado, landlords and tenants to tread carefully in negotiating a commercial lease for space to be used as a healing center.

Read More »