Cryptocurrency In Small Bytes - Insuring the Blockchain: Risks of Blockchain-Based Business
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.28.18
Businesses that deploy or rely upon blockchain may face unique risks. And just as businesses are considering the risks presented by blockchain operations, insurers similarly are sizing up the exposures.
A key question is whether there is some intrinsic difference in the risks posed by doing business through a decentralized blockchain system as opposed to a more traditional, centralized business model. While advocates of the technology contend that a blockchain model is more secure and reliable, there is no question that a blockchain is not infallible. Can the lack of control over each node of the blockchain enhance risk in unanticipated ways? Are limitations on how scalable blockchain can be, since every participating node in the network must process every transaction, fully understood? What are the implications in terms of business interruption and liability faced by a blockchain participant if a blockchain operation is locked down or disrupted, even temporarily?
Among other risks, exposures related to data security and privacy issues are at the top of the list. There is a risk of data theft or hacking, which could expose confidential data, even if the validity of the blockchain operation overall isn’t compromised. There also are concerns stemming from the fact that confidential business and personal information is being shared, needs to be encrypted or otherwise secured, and is being housed in multiple locations on a permanent basis. Does the blockchain’s means of operation meet regulatory requirements for handling confidential personal information? For instance, is the way a blockchain functions consistent with regulatory expectations that personal data will be destroyed when it is no longer necessary for business purposes? How does this regulatory expectation of destruction of personal data no longer needed for business purposes apply, given the permanence of transactions in a blockchain?
Apart from the risks that may be posed by blockchain technology per se, there are specific concerns posed by bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. For instance, we are just beginning to get a glimpse of answers to questions such as whether cryptocurrencies are “money” or “funds,” and whether digital token public offerings or initial coin offerings (ICOs) are unregistered securities, subject to regulations governing equity market offerings. There may be substantial responsibilities and exposures posed depending on how the legal system answers these questions.
For early adopters of blockchain in innovating business operations, there are obvious risks. As use of blockchain technology grows, so does the need for insurance designed to address its risks.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
