In a newly proposed class action lawsuit, Jackson v. Athena Bitcoin, Inc., 4:24CV00331, filed by the only and only LawHQ (if you didn’t read my previous blog, check it out here: here), a Florida resident claims crypto ATM behemoth Athena Bitcoin bombarded him with a “relentless” flood of promotional texts after he used one of their machines. The Complaint alleges that Athena’s messages violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Florida’s Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).

Under the TCPA, companies can’t send marketing texts to consumers who’ve asked to opt out. Specifically, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) prohibit such texts. The FTSA, Fla. Stat. § 501.059(5), similarly bars unwanted marketing messages after a consumer opts out. Violators can face $500 to $1500 in damages per text.

Now, if you’re like me, anything crypto-related immediately piques your interest! Crypto ATMs offer a unique allure: instant access to digital currency without a bank account or lengthy verification process. It’s a seemingly simple gateway into the world of Bitcoin and beyond, especially for the unbanked or those side-eyeing traditional financial institutions. But convenience comes at a cost. These ATMs often charge transaction fees that can exceed a whopping 20%. At that rate, you might as well just use Coinbase, right?

However, it’s not just the fees that are concerning. The anonymity provided by crypto ATMs has raised red flags, with some suggesting they could be used for questionable purposes, like untraceable transactions or even money laundering. While the extent of this misuse is still debated (which is very real and happening), it’s clear that the features that make these ATMs attractive could also make them a risk.

But back to the lawsuit—there’s more at play here than just steep fees. The Complaint paints a disturbing picture of Athena allegedly deliberately targeting low-income and unbanked populations, saturating these vulnerable communities with their high-fee crypto ATMs. What is more, there is the allegation that Athena does not honor consumer requests to opt out of telemarketing text messages and fails to institute procedures for maintaining a do-not-call list. These practices suggest that Athena’s primary goal is to increase transaction volumes at their ATMs, even at the expense of consumer privacy and consent.

And then came the texts. According to Plaintiff, after using an Athena ATM and providing his phone number for a required verification code, he was hit with a barrage of “flash deals” and “limited time offers,” urging him to buy more crypto. When he texted “STOP” to opt out, Athena allegedly hit pause for a mere two days before resuming the text onslaught.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others who have received these texts, seeks damages and injunctive relief to stop Athena from continuing these practices.

Here’s where things get juicy. I did a little digging into Athena’s privacy policy, which states that they may send “transactional or relationship messages” even after a user opts out. Hmm…is this a clever attempt to disguise marketing as “account messages” to skirt telemarketing laws? If these post-opt-out texts were truly essential account notices, why the promo lingo? Athena… we’re here. 

Stay tuned, folks. This is one crypto drama you won’t want to miss.

Talk soon!