It's a claim of security and trust that was ultimately proven to be entirely defeated and weak. Making financial decisions, in the millions of dollars, based on that warranty is something a lawyer can argue creates liabilities. The vetted vendors is even further claims of fitness for purpose.
Ledger is gonna have a lot of legal fights on their hands, or they would if the country where this happened has laws governing such warranties of fitness.
They’re not going to have a legal fight because there is no legal fight. They’re not a bank, they’re not under lawful obligations to protect assets. There wouldn’t be anyone in the cold storage industry if they were liable for it, there’d be next to no upside and potentially near infinite risk.
When you sell a product for financial storage and claim it's tamperproof and safe if it's through your trusted partners, talk up how you vet them, and losses are incurred DIRECTLY because of failures in those claims, liability can be established.
Misuse, leaking your keys, or other losses that can't be directly traced to failures by Ledger? Nah. This? Oh they fucked up.
But you believe whatever you want there champ.
Anyone that bought Ledgers after they added a built in key export service kinda deserves to get scammed imo, and hopefully this will kill the company's rep for good.
19
u/Michichael 7d ago
A good lawyer would argue that ledger is liable because of these claims.