Why does this matter?
If you use foreign crypto platforms, this ruling confirms you can sue in Argentina even if the terms and conditions designate foreign jurisdiction. If you provide digital services to Argentine users, be aware that foreign jurisdiction clauses will not override local consumer protection.
Key facts
- Case: “Biquard, Carolina v. Xapo Bank Limited et al. s/ ordinary proceedings”
- Court: National Commercial Court of Appeals
- Date: March 10, 2026
What happened?
Carolina Biquard’s phone was stolen and her crypto accounts at Xapo were emptied through two unauthorized transfers without adequate security verification. Xapo, domiciled in Gibraltar, declined responsibility. Biquard sued in Argentina. Xapo challenged jurisdiction, arguing that the terms and conditions designated Gibraltar courts exclusively.
What did the Court rule?
The Court upheld Argentine jurisdiction on three grounds:
- Consumer rights have constitutional status (Article 42 of the Constitution) and cannot be waived by contract.
- The Argentine Civil and Commercial Code (Article 2654) prohibits jurisdiction agreements in consumer contracts, preventing providers from imposing the most convenient forum.
- The physical location where the consumer performed the contracting acts (in this case, Buenos Aires, from her phone) constitutes a valid jurisdictional connection, even if the contract was executed digitally.
Practical takeaways:
Foreign jurisdiction clauses in digital platform terms and conditions are unenforceable against Argentine consumers. The physical location from which the app is operated constitutes a competent forum.
We remain at your disposal.
Canosa Abogados
