Binance Secures Second Major U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act Victory in Two Weeks

Binance’s legal department has achieved a rare and significant milestone in U.S. federal court, securing its second major dismissal of an Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) lawsuit in just 14 days. This sequence of victories represents a critical turning point for the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, which has spent the last two years navigating a complex web of regulatory and civil litigation following its historic $4.3 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in late 2023. These recent rulings suggest that while Binance may have faced penalties for past anti-money laundering (AML) failures, the judiciary is unwilling to extend that liability to the specific, horrific acts of third-party terrorist organizations.

The core of these legal battles centers on the 'material support' clause of the ATA. Plaintiffs, often victims of international terrorism or their families, have argued that Binance’s historical lack of robust Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols effectively provided a financial lifeline to designated terrorist groups. However, the U.S. court system is increasingly adhering to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Twitter v. Taamneh. This precedent dictates that a platform cannot be held liable for 'aiding and abetting' terrorism simply by providing a generic service used by millions, even if some of those users are bad actors. To succeed, plaintiffs must demonstrate 'proximate cause'—a direct, non-tenuous link between the exchange’s specific actions and the specific attack in question.

“

Binance’s legal department has achieved a rare and significant milestone in U.S.

For the broader digital asset industry, these dismissals provide a vital shield against secondary liability. Had the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, it would have set a dangerous precedent for every financial institution and crypto exchange operating in the U.S. Such a ruling would have effectively made exchanges the de facto insurers for any global conflict where digital assets were even tangentially involved. By upholding the high bar for ATA claims, the courts are signaling that the responsibility for policing global terrorism remains a state function, rather than a burden shifted entirely onto private technology platforms.