Proceedings
As we become more dependent on the Internet, so are online scams. As a result, the causes of proceedings resulting from online activities are increasing rapidly. People who perpetuate online attacks often use pseudonyms, email addresses, cryptocurrency wallets, or blockchain addresses instead of official names. In many cases, parties injured by online activities such as theft, defamation, and harassment do not know the identity of the responsible person, but only the IP address, email address, blockchain address, or hacker’s “handle”. Hmm. Even anonymous online actors need to “serve”, but how do you serve strangers?
Historically, when proceeding, you must provide the other party with a copy of the complaint and subpoena ordering you to appear in court to address the matter, detailing the nature of the proceeding. For hundreds of years, “services” were primarily achieved by having a private process server or sheriff pass the document to the other side. Ohio R.Civ today. P. 4 shows various ways in which the process can be provided to both out-of-state and international residents (Rule 4.3) or by publishing in the newspaper (Rule 4.4). As a general rule, service (at least the documents required to initiate a proceeding) may be served directly in certified mail, repeatedly in publicly available local newspapers, or in the case of service of international complaints. , Treaty on Service of Judicial and Out-of-Judgment Documents on Civil or Commercial on November 15, 1965 (Hague Service Treaty), Additional Protocol to the Inter-American Treaty on Inter-Administrative Assistance (Inter-American Treaty), and Requests for Inter-Administrative Assistance Diplomacy Received through the channel.
Law firm ordered to drop legal documents in the air
So what if you don’t know the identity of the party who violated the law? Various laws require anonymous online actors to be notified throughout the proceedings process. This includes a pre-trial request for defamation proceedings, a notice of the commencement of the proceedings, and a notice that the parties are attempting to identify an anonymous online actor through the discovery process. Not limited to. Internet lawyers often have to be creative to meet these requirements. Some courts allow lawyers to provide notifications by posting public comments corresponding to anonymous online actors on online bulletin boards. This requirement may also be met by non-parties being summoned for information related to the true legal identity of anonymous online actors. For example, if you summon Facebook for a user’s ID, Facebook will notify the user that the user’s identity has been summoned. Facebook users have the opportunity to prevent disclosure of their identities by filing a crushing allegation.
One mechanism for “serving” anonymous online actors is to file a “John Doe” proceeding in the district court, sue an unknown person, and attempt to identify the performer using discovery rules. Is to do. This typically involves sending a discovery request to the owner of the relevant data point, such as an internet service provider, social media platform, website administrator, or even a blockchain account. Internet lawyers follow these trails until they identify someone acting under a pseudonym.
In addition, in some jurisdictions, a party attempting to file a proceeding may simply contact the other party and request that they “waive” their right to service. For example, Ohio citizens. R. 4.7 allows the parties to require the other party to waive formal service, and if they waive this right, the responding party will be given more time to respond to the allegation. .. If you request a waiver of service, the request must only be provided by first class mail or “other reliable means”. “Reasonable means” may include emails, text messages, and even posts on social media. If the parties disagree with the waiver (if the court has jurisdiction over them), they may be forced to pay the cost of service of the later complaint. Of course, if the request is ignored, it is likely that it is suspected of theft or anonymous activity, so the proposed plaintiff must provide evidence of service of the actual complaint. Return to.
Navigating notification requirements as technological advances
Navigating notification requirements when anonymous online actors are involved is not new to Internet lawyers, but new in the context of blockchain and the Metaverse. Certain stakeholders have sought to be creative in achieving the service. Recently, LCXAGv. John Doe Nos. 1-25 (Dkt.No., 154644/2022) (NY Supreme, Ct ., NY County) LCX, a European cryptocurrency exchange, has stolen about US $ 8 million from one of its cryptocurrencies and transferred it to another. LCX wanted to “freeze” the wallet from which the transfer took place, but did not have information about the wallet owner. In fact, the only data point was the wallet’s unique blockchain address. The problem for LCX lawyers in New York was that they could not file a proceeding without the service of some form of complaint. The lawyer has informed the Supreme Court of New York (the lowest court in New York’s general jurisdiction) to “provide” cryptocurrencies via blockchain addresses and not allow the transfer to the Center Consortium, the administrator of cryptocurrencies. Obtained for permission to respond to a court order to indicate the cause, or to respond to the proceedings themselves, of funds from the wallet.
The court specifically ordered LCX lawyers to provide a copy of the court’s order and other legal documents to indicate the cause.
“On top of someone who manages one or more people [blockchain] It will be delivered (airdropped) to the address via a dedicated Ethereum-based token (service token). The service token contains a hyperlink (service hyperlink) to the website created by. [plaintiff’s lawyers] Here, the plaintiff’s attorney shall issue this order to indicate the cause and all the papers on which it is based. Service hyperlinks include a mechanism to track when a user clicks on a service hyperlink. Such Services shall constitute a good and sufficient service for the purpose of jurisdiction under New York State law over the individual or multiple individuals who control the address … “
Unlike Ohio, the law on service of complaints in New York states, by direct mail, service to a registered agent, disclosure, and the court’s reliance here (without reference), “The Court alleges without notice. If there is, it tells if the delivery is infeasible … “.
In effect, the New York court has allowed lawyers to carry out “grappling hooks.” They were allowed to send notifications via hyperlinks to blockchain addresses. When someone associated with that blockchain address clicks on a link, it takes you to a website that contains the required documents (subpoenas, complaints, etc.) and records your visit to the site. In effect, clicking on the link considers the court to accept the service of the complaint. The approach is novel, but the overall idea is reasonable that the parties you are seeking relief have practical and effective notice of the fact that they are being sued or suspended. To provide a good guarantee to the court. As technology changes, courts need to remain flexible and amend civil litigation rules on how to apply service rules to new virtual environments.
