The Digital Chamber (TDC), a leading U.S. crypto lobbying group, has filed a second amicus brief in the New York State Supreme Court, opposing a lawsuit that seeks to claim ownership of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin wallet addresses. The case, brought by a plaintiff known as ‘Noah Doe’ and two Wyoming-based companies, argues that these inactive wallets—including several linked to Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto—should be treated as abandoned property under New York law. The plaintiff estimates the wallets collectively hold about 3.7 million BTC, worth roughly $234 billion at current prices.
In its filing, the Digital Chamber warned that treating self-custodied digital assets as abandoned property would “create a pervasive cloud on title across self-custody wallets” and could weaken fundamental principles of digital ownership. The group, which represents over 250 members including exchanges, banks, and investment firms, argued that the legal theory advanced by Noah Doe could extend far beyond the named wallets and potentially affect all self-custodied cryptocurrencies.
The lawsuit originated in May 2026, with Doe claiming he discovered a security vulnerability that permanently prevented some owners from accessing their Bitcoin. After allegedly spending more than a year trying to identify the owners, he assigned ownership interests in most of the claimed wallets to two Wyoming companies. The New York Supreme Court has paused proceedings until oral arguments on July 14, 2026, preventing the plaintiffs from seeking a default judgment.
While the legal battle unfolds, on-chain data shows that some of the disputed dormant wallets have become active again. According to Galaxy Digital head of research Alex Thorn, at least 31 wallets transferred a combined 17,527 BTC during June, accelerating from five wallets moving 4,834 BTC in February. One address, inactive since August 2011, moved 30 BTC on July 5. A pseudonymous defendant, ‘John Doe 33,’ has also moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Bitcoin addresses are data strings and cannot be sued.
The outcome of this case could set a critical precedent for how courts handle digital asset ownership, inheritance, and the rights of long-term holders. Even if the plaintiffs win, they would still need the private keys to access the funds—a hurdle the lawsuit does not address. The Digital Chamber’s intervention signals the industry’s concern that an adverse ruling could disrupt the market and encourage similar claims against other dormant wallets, creating significant legal uncertainty for the crypto ecosystem.
