Woofun AI reports that the Digital Chamber has intervened in a New York legal dispute concerning dormant Bitcoin addresses by filing an amicus brief. This submission directly challenges the core premise of a lawsuit that seeks to claim ownership over thousands of inactive crypto wallets under state lost-property statutes.

The Monday filing marks the second amicus brief submitted in this high-stakes case, which was initiated in late May by "Noah Doe" and two Wyoming-based companies. The plaintiffs are pursuing ownership of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses, a move that could redefine how inactive crypto is treated under lost-property law. The Digital Chamber warns that such a ruling would cast a "pervasive cloud on title across self-custody wallets," thereby undermining the "foundational principles of digital property ownership." According to Sani, founder of analytics platform Timechain Index, these addresses hold an estimated 3.7 million Bitcoin (BTC) worth approximately $234 billion, including wallets linked to Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto. The association, which describes itself as the oldest and largest digital asset trade association with over 250 members including crypto exchanges, banks, and investment firms, argues that negative ripple effects would extend into the traditional finance industry.

Woofun AI data shows that wallet activity among the targeted addresses has increased, with 31 addresses moving 17,527 Bitcoin in June, a significant rise from the five addresses that transferred 4,834 BTC in February. Galaxy Digital head of research Alex Thorn highlighted specific movements, noting that Bitcoin address "1KV47" transferred 30 BTC, valued at about $1.88 million, on Saturday. This transaction marked the wallet’s first movement in nearly 15 years, since August 2011.

Despite the legal maneuvering, the practical control of these assets remains uncertain without possession of the private keys. On Thursday, a pseudonymous defendant filed a notice of appearance and motion to dismiss, asserting control over one of the dormant wallets named in the lawsuit. This development underscores the technical barriers facing plaintiffs who lack cryptographic access to the claimed funds.