Home / Coin Payment / Buying Crypto on Credit Not Necessarily a Cash Advance

Buying Crypto on Credit Not Necessarily a Cash Advance

Southern District of New York Judge Katherine Polk Failla has ruled that purchasing cryptocurrency with a Chase Bank credit card does not necessarily count as a cash advance, as for Chase’s contract.

Judge Failla has denied Chase 's motion to dismiss a number of the plaintiff' s complaints, which centers the bank charging to user cash advance fees for buying cryptocurrency with a Chase credit card.

The plaintiffs are Brady Tucker, Ryan Hilton and Stanton Smith, who brought a class action suit against Chase giant banking.

In the document, Failla summarized their class action suit as follows:

"This claim – indeed, the entirety of Plaintiffs' suit – is built on an argument that acquisitions of cryptocurrency could be classified as a cash advances within the meaning of the Contracts. […] Chase disagrees, claiming that cryptocurrency acquisitions are ‘cash-like transactions’ pursuant to the Contracts, and thus cash advances. The parties' disputes thus boils down to a difference of opinion concerning the proper interpretation of the term 'cash-like transaction.' "

Judging Failla believes that the plaintiffs have provided a reasonable interpretation of the term “cash-like transaction” in the context of Chase's contract.

As plaintiffs are interpreted the word cash as referring only to fiat money, and cash-like as referring only to legally-recognized claims on cash – such as checks, money orders, and wire transfers, and notably not cryptocurrency. The defendants believe that the term cash-like transactions applies to payment, cryptocurrency-based or otherwise.

Notably, Judge Failla has not been able to solve the problem and said that their interpretation is correct. Rather, Failla has simply noticed that their interpretation is plausible enough for them to proceed with their class action case. Failla wrote:

"At this point in the proceedings, however, it is irrelevant whether Chase's interpretation of" cashlike transactions "is more reasonable than Plaintiffs". […] Because Plaintiffs have identified a reasonable interpretation of "cash-like transactions" that would exclude purchases of cryptocurrency, the breach of contract claim survives the motion to dismiss. "

Source link