Results

Representative Matters

A selection of dispute types and engagements handled by the firm. Due to confidentiality obligations, specific identifying details, monetary amounts, and party names are omitted.

Disclaimer: These case studies are representative of the types of matters handled by the firm. Identifying details have been generalized. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Featured Case Study

Coordinated Reputation & Regulatory Campaign Forces Platform Response in 24 Hours

After exhausting all direct channels with no response, we launched a coordinated multi-platform campaign targeting the operator’s Trustpilot rating, game provider relationships, affiliate partners, and licensing authority. The operator responded within 24 hours. They ceased operations within the year.

Read full case study Featured Case Study

Offshore Operator Retroactively Voids $220K Win — Cross-Border Recovery

Operator changed bonus terms after a player’s $220K win and denied the withdrawal. We proved the terms were modified using web archives, traced the corporate structure to a Dutch Caribbean holding entity, and engaged international counsel to pursue enforcement at the operator’s registered address.

Read full case study

Digital Asset Dispute

Cryptocurrency Exchange Blocks Withdrawal for Six Weeks

Exchange placed withdrawal in “pending” state citing “enhanced due diligence” but never specified what was needed or provided a timeline.

How We Approached It

Assembled on-chain transaction records proving the client’s deposit source and transaction history were fully legitimate. Compared the exchange’s published withdrawal policy against actual behavior — the policy promised 24-hour processing, the hold was at six weeks and counting.

What We Did

Demand letter with on-chain evidence attached. Concurrent regulatory complaint to the state financial services regulator where the exchange held a money transmitter license.

Outcome

Withdrawal processed within two weeks of engagement. No litigation.

Read case details

Offshore Platform

Cross-Border Enforcement Against Offshore-Licensed Operator

Offshore-domiciled platform restricted account access and became completely unresponsive to direct communications over a two-month period.

How We Approached It

Identified the platform’s corporate registration in a Dutch Caribbean jurisdiction. Determined that despite the offshore domicile, the entity maintained U.S. banking relationships and state-level registrations that created jurisdictional and regulatory exposure.

What We Did

Filed coordinated complaints with the CFPB, the relevant state financial regulator, and the state attorney general. Simultaneously prepared civil litigation in a U.S. forum and engaged our affiliated counsel in the platform’s domicile jurisdiction for parallel local demand.

Outcome

Platform engaged with our office within 10 days of receiving coordinated correspondence from both U.S. and international counsel. Dispute resolved within 30 days. Full account access restored.

Read case details

Verification Loop

Circular Verification Demands — Four Submissions Over Three Months

Financial platform requested identity documents four separate times over three months, each time claiming prior submissions were incomplete or not received.

How We Approached It

Documented every submission with timestamps, confirmation receipts, and the platform’s own acknowledgment of receipt. Mapped the pattern: submit → acknowledge → wait → request again. Identified specific personnel at the platform who had confirmed documents were received.

What We Did

Demand letter that presented the circular pattern as evidence of unfair business practices under applicable UDAP statutes. Named the specific employees who had confirmed receipt.

Outcome

Account fully reinstated. No further verification demands issued.

Read case details

Reinstatement / Re-Freeze

Platform Reinstated Account Then Re-Froze Under Different Rationale

Platform reinstated client’s account after initial restriction, then re-froze it two weeks later citing an entirely different reason. Client lost funds during the interim period.

How We Approached It

Constructed a side-by-side timeline showing the first stated rationale, the reinstatement decision, and the second stated rationale. The contradictions were irreconcilable — the second reason could not have arisen after reinstatement because the underlying activity predated the original restriction.

What We Did

Demand letter highlighting the timeline contradiction and arguing that the platform accepted the benefit of the client’s continued play during the reinstated period while holding a known basis for restriction. Filed a regulatory complaint documenting the pattern of inconsistent enforcement.

Outcome

Account fully reinstated with no further restrictions. Losses incurred during the reinstated-then-refrozen period were addressed as part of the resolution.

Read case details

Financial Recovery

Six-Figure Merchant Reserve Held Beyond Contractual Period

Payment processor terminated merchant account and retained reserve balance months beyond the agreed holding period. No release timeline provided.

How We Approached It

Reviewed the merchant processing agreement and identified the specific contractual provision governing reserve release — including the exact calendar date when the reserve should have been released. Documented the processor’s failure to comply with its own contract.

What We Did

Formal demand citing the contractual provision, the missed release date, and the accrued damages from the hold. Identified the processor’s state financial services registration as a regulatory pressure point.

Outcome

Reserve released in full prior to litigation. No court filing required.

Read case details

Digital Asset Dispute

Exchange Closed Account Without Notice — Balance Recovered

Digital asset exchange closed client’s account with no prior notice and a substantial balance remaining. Platform cited ToS violation but couldn’t identify the specific conduct.

How We Approached It

Requested the specific terms-of-service provision the platform cited. The platform could not produce one. Documented that the client’s account activity was consistent with normal platform usage and that no prior warning or notice had been issued.

What We Did

Formal demand to the platform’s legal department with a conversion claim theory — the platform was holding the client’s property without lawful justification. Set a 14-day deadline.

Outcome

All funds returned. Platform could not substantiate the closure basis when faced with formal legal engagement.

Read case details

Have a Similar Dispute?

Contact our office to discuss your matter. We will assess the facts and advise on your legal options.

Request a Consultation