Binance secures another major legal victory in U.S. court under anti-terrorism act 

Cryptocurrency exchange Binance announced the legal victory against the lawsuit alleged for the violation of an anti-terrorism act (ATA), marking their second victory,  following their victory in the Southern District of New York. 

Second legal win for Binance

A U.S. federal court in Alabama dismissed all the claims against the cryptocurrency exchange in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), after the court found the plaintiff’s complaint to be deficient both legally and factually. 

The detailed 19-page ruling, according to the company, emphasized the decisive legal victory for Binance, as the judge described the filing as a “shotgun pleading.”

The complaint was said to be unclear and too generalized, rather than clearly specifying what each defendant was held liable for; instead, they were grouped together improperly.  The report also mentions that the plaintiff did not meet the basic pleading standards of  “short and plain statement,” failing to explain who did what or why they’re legally responsible.

The plaintiffs were given an additional opportunity to file the amended complaint by April 10, 2026, to rectify the identified deficiencies, despite the court’s ruling. However, the court warned the failure to submit the required data would lead to case dismissal.

“This decision reinforces our unwavering commitment to protecting Binance and our community from unsubstantiated and bad-faith lawsuits,” shared Eleanor Hughes, General Counsel at Binance. 

Legal victories mark upholding compliance and conduct

Binance is a leading cryptocurrency exchange managing an ecosystem trusted by over 130 million users across more than a hundred countries, known for its  industry-leading security, transparency, and wider portfolio of digital asset products.

The following victory is closely after their victory in New York, where the lawsuit claimed 535 plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the company in providing material support related to 64 terrorist attacks.

However, the court rejected the allegations about the company being involved in any conspiracy with terrorists. 

“Sanctions compliance and terrorism financing are serious matters of law—they require evidence, legal rigor, and due process. Courts have now examined these claims on two separate occasions and found them to be without merit,” Hughes added, “These outcomes speak for themselves. We will not tolerate attempts to misuse the legal system to target our industry, and we remain as committed as ever to transparency, security, and lawful conduct in everything we do.”