A federal court in the US state of Alabama rejected all claims in the lawsuit filed against Binance under the Anti-Terrorism Act. This decision marks the second time in the last week that a US court has cleared cryptocurrency exchange Binance in a similar case. Binance, which operates as the highest volume crypto exchange globally, has been struggling with regulatory and legal pressures in various countries for a long time.
Back to Back Rejection Decisions from Alabama and New York
In his 19-page ruling, U.S. Judge Chad W. Bryan, sitting in the Northern District of Alabama, described the plaintiffs’ claims as “shotgun pleading.” This term is used to describe scattered complaint petitions that do not clearly reveal which allegations are directed to whom in the case or how the actions of the defendants are separated. In addition to structural deficiencies, the court found that plaintiffs failed to present evidence proving that Binance’s actions concretely aided a specific terrorist attack. Plaintiffs were given the right to rearrange their complaints and submit them to the court until April 10, 2026, in order to correct these identified deficiencies.
Similar Result in the Case in New York
The decision in Alabama is not just a regional practice. In a similar lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York on March 6, 535 plaintiffs alleged that Binance provided material support for 64 separate terrorist attacks. However, in this case, the court found the allegations unfounded. It was emphasized that no concrete connection could be revealed indicating that Binace supported the attacks or cooperated with terrorist organizations. While the judges in both regions made independent decisions, it was observed that the files bore similarities on the merits.
Statement from Binance Legal Team
Binance’s Legal Director Eleanor Hughes said that the successive rejection decisions clearly confirm the company’s position. According to Hughes, the courts clearly did not give credence to the claim that Binance aided terrorist organizations. Hughes’ statement was quoted as follows:
The courts have flatly rejected allegations that Binance is linked to terrorists.
This strong emphasis of Eleanor Hughes means that she considers the emergence of similar decisions in different regions as a harmony of the provisions given on the basis of the cases, rather than a “coincidence”.
The Future and Implications of Litigation
The judicial process in Alabama is not fully concluded. Plaintiffs will be able to file a renewed complaint by April 10, 2026, addressing the deficiencies highlighted by the court. In the New York file, a similar application window has not yet been made public after the March 6 decision, but it may be possible to file a lawsuit there again.
With these two decisions, it seems that the legal pressure on Binance has eased for now. However, Binance’s agreement with US regulators to comply with anti-money laundering laws in 2023 continues to determine the company’s position in Washington. The rejection decisions in the last two cases closed the legal front only on a specific set of allegations carried out under the Anti-Terrorism Law.
