Bitcoin ATM
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Bitcoin Depot Operating LLC
Date: Feb. 3, 2026
Issue: Whether Bitcoin Depot failed to protect customers from cryptocurrency scams.
Case Summary: Massachusetts Attorney General Joy Campbell (the Mass. AG) sued Bitcoin Depot in the Suffolk County Superior Court, alleging that the company failed to protect its customers from cryptocurrency scams.
Bitcoin Depot owns and operates hundreds of Bitcoin kiosks across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. According to the Mass. AG, Bitcoin Depot promotes its kiosks as a means for unbanked and underbanked consumers to buy cryptocurrency and participate in the digital economy. But according to the Mass. AG, its kiosks primarily funneled large sums of consumers’ money to crypto scammers. The Mass. AG’s office contacted hundreds of customers who spent $10,000 or more between August 2023 and January 2025. They found that over 80% used the kiosks for scams, generating $10.6 million—nearly 60% of the company’s kiosk revenue in Massachusetts — while fewer than ten customers made legitimate transactions.
The Mass. AG made five claims in the complaint. First, the Mass. AG alleged Bitcoin Depot allegedly displayed lower Bitcoin prices at the start of transactions, which it did not honor. As transactions progressed, hidden fees increased the final price beyond the originally displayed amount, a practice known as drip pricing. The Mass. AG claimed it did not clearly disclose this pricing disparity on its kiosks and buried references in lengthy terms and conditions. They also asserted that these actions violated consumer protection laws, with Bitcoin Depot Inc. being vicariously liable for its subsidiary’s actions.
Second, the Mass. AG argued that Bitcoin Depot charged excessive fees. The Mass. AG alleged that Bitcoin Depot imposed hidden spreads that exceeded the 23% cap it promised in its terms and conditions, not including the $3 service fee. According to the Mass. AG, Bitcoin Depot failed to disclose the size of its markup during transactions, making it difficult for customers to determine whether the company honored its stated limits. The Mass. AG claimed that in more than 7,000 transactions the spread exceeded 23%, and in more than 2,000 transactions it surpassed 29%, representing more than half of the transactions during the relevant period. Aside from its alleged drip pricing practices described in its previous claim, the Mass. AG further alleged that the size of Bitcoin Depot’s hidden fees independently violated Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section 2, because the company charged amounts above the maximum cap set forth in its own terms and conditions. The Mass. AG asserted that Bitcoin Depot knowingly overcharged customers, misled them about its pricing practices, and violated Massachusetts consumer protection law.
Third, Bitcoin Depot allegedly facilitated fraud: customers, law enforcement, and even company employees repeatedly warned Bitcoin Depot about widespread fraud, yet it failed to stop it and, in some cases, weakened its oversight. Bitcoin Depot allegedly allowed victims to continue sending money to scammers, kept between 13% and 30% of the funds through fees and markups, and often refused to help victims recover losses.
Fourth, Bitcoin Depot allegedly possessed a deceptive refund policy. Despite repeated employee warnings that most large transactions involved scam victims, it allegedly reduced customer screening, raised transaction limits, and continued practices that increased fraud risk. When victims later reported that scammers stole their money, Bitcoin Depot allegedly told them it could not help and failed to offer refunds, even though it retained significant fees and could return those funds.
Finally, the Mass. AG alleged Bitcoin Depot unlawfully withheld material information from investors. The Mass. AG alleged that Bitcoin Depot made false or misleading statements in its securities offering documents by not disclosing the extent to which fraudulent transactions drove kiosk revenue. As a result, these misrepresentations caused investors to purchase securities that were riskier than represented and resulted in financial harm to Massachusetts investors.
Bottom Line: A pretrial conference will be held on March 30, 2026.
Document: Complaint
