Authors: Michael Bacina, Louisa Xu, Tom Skevington
Michael Bacina, Tom Skevington and Louisa Xu of the Piper Alderman Blockchain Group bring you the latest legal, regulatory and project updates in Blockchain and Digital Law.
What’s in a name? Ripple rebrand required over PayID stoush
Global digital asset juggernaut Ripple Labs is being sued by New Payments Platform Australia (NPPA) for alleged infringement of the PayID trade mark. In an originating application filed by NPPA on 20 August in the New South Wales division of the Federal Court, NPPA alleged that Ripple infringed its PayID trade mark by promoting its own payment system under the same name.
NPPA’s PayID was first launched in February 2018 to allow real-time payments between particular Australian bank accounts, and uses a universal payment identifier in place of the conventional BSB and account number combo. Ripple’s PayID was only launched in June 2020.
For more details, see here.
COVID-19 vaccine scam proceeds are traceable, despite claims to the contrary
An Australian website selling a scam COVID-19 vaccine in exchange for Bitcoin has been doing the rounds in the media recently, which has led to more incorrect commentary that proceeds from the scam are “anonymous and mostly untraceable”.
In comments to various media outlets, an “expert” in cyber fraud was quoted as saying:
Not only does Bitcoin make it almost impossible to track the transaction, it also allows scammers to transfer money across the world
As we have seen time and time and time and time again, financing criminal activity with a system which leaves an immutable, irreversible and publicly accessible record of your actions is a terrible way to commit crime, and provides an accessible and low-cost resource for regulators to investigate illegal activities.
Australian CBDC proof-of-concept confirmed by RBA
In a recent meeting on 21 August 2020, the members of the Payments System Board confirmed that the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is developing a proof-of-concept for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) in Australia with external parties.
The proof-of-concept will explore aspects of wholesale CBDC on a private Ethereum network which was previously mentioned in the RBA’s submissions to the Senate Select Committee on FinTech and RegTech.
Notwithstanding the experiments, the Payments System Board which includes representatives of the RBA, APRA and the Treasury, did not consider there was a strong public-policy case for a retail CBDC in Australia at the moment. The New Payments Platform in Australia currently provides near instantaneous payment capabilities, removing one of the longstanding complaints about traditional digitized currency. The RBA has confirmed it is monitoring international CBDC developments and conducting further research.
The RBA has noted:
The [RBA] is continuing to research the technological and policy implications of a wholesale form of CBDC and is working to develop a proof-of-concept with external parties to explore aspects of wholesale CBDC, building on research the Bank did in its Innovation Lab last year.
Crypto class action commenced against Google, Facebook
Google and Facebook have been hit with a class action in relation to their decisions in 2018 to restrict advertising of digital currencies on their respective platforms.
An originating application, statement of claim and genuine steps statement were lodged in the New South Wales registry of the Federal Court this month by Andrew Hamilton claiming that the internet giants breached Australian competition laws.
In comments provided to Cointelegraph, Hamilton, who is not a lawyer in NSW, claims that his extensive research into Australian competition law has led to his belief that Facebook and Google were acting as a cartel, and that it would be “pretty easy to prove it.”
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission may not be as confident as Mr Hamilton, as they did not respond to Mr Hamilton complaints about Google and Facebook. Mr Hamilton also told Cointelegraph that the class action has seen “a major law firm” contribute “hundreds of hours off the clock“.
At this stage, without knowing the details of the claim, it is difficult to contemplate the merit of the arguments. In addition to the specific questions about the application of Australia’s prohibitions against cartel conduct, which are set out in Part IV, Division 1 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), there are opens questions about the claim’s connection to Australia, as well as the arrangements between Mr Hamilton in his role as Applicant, Legal Representative and any litigation funder (if there is one).
We will continue following this case and provide updates as it develops.
