Web3 Attorney

David Newman Brunk is an Oregon attorney who handles Web3 and cryptocurrency disputes and digital asset matters. He represents businesses and individuals in claims against exchanges and wallet providers, in litigation over digital asset ownership, and in matters before the Oregon Division of Financial Regulation. He is admitted to practice in Oregon and holds a J.D. from NYU School of Law.

Oregon's Cryptocurrency Legal Framework

Oregon does not have a standalone cryptocurrency statute. Digital assets are governed by a combination of existing Oregon law and newly enacted frameworks:

Oregon Securities Law — ORS Chapter 59

Oregon's Securities Law (ORS 59.005 et seq.) applies to cryptocurrency transactions that qualify as securities offerings. Whether a particular digital asset is a security under Oregon law depends on the application of the investment contract test — essentially, whether purchasers are investing money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profit derived primarily from the efforts of others.

Oregon's Division of Financial Regulation (DFR) enforces ORS Chapter 59. The DFR has jurisdiction over unregistered securities offerings and unlicensed broker-dealer activity within the state. Selling or exchanging digital assets that qualify as securities without proper registration — or operating an unregistered exchange — is a violation of ORS 59.055 and ORS 59.065.

Under ORS 59.115, a purchaser who acquires a security in violation of Oregon's registration requirements has a right of rescission against the seller. This civil remedy is available regardless of whether criminal charges are filed.

The Oregon AG v. Coinbase Lawsuit (April 2025)

In April 2025, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed suit against Coinbase Global, Inc. in Multnomah County Circuit Court. The complaint alleged that Coinbase operated as an unregistered securities exchange, broker-dealer, and investment adviser under ORS Chapter 59 by offering trading in dozens of digital assets that Oregon regulators characterized as securities.

The suit is significant for several reasons. It signals that Oregon intends to apply its existing securities law aggressively to cryptocurrency platforms, without waiting for new federal legislation. It also establishes that platforms serving Oregon users may face state enforcement even when they argue that the assets they list are not securities under federal law. Businesses operating cryptocurrency platforms or offering token-based products in Oregon should treat the DFR as an active enforcement body.

Oregon UCC Article 12 — Controllable Electronic Records

Oregon adopted Revised UCC Article 12 (effective January 1, 2024), which creates a legal framework specifically for "controllable electronic records" (CERs) — a category that covers most digital assets, including cryptocurrency. This is a significant development for anyone involved in disputes over digital asset ownership or transfer.

Key provisions of Oregon's UCC Article 12:

• Qualifying purchaser rule. A "qualifying purchaser" who obtains control of a CER for value, without notice of adverse claims, takes free of those claims — similar to the holder in due course rule for negotiable instruments. This matters enormously in disputes over stolen or fraudulently transferred cryptocurrency.
• Control defined. "Control" of a CER means the ability to transfer the record and the exclusive power to prevent others from doing so. This is distinct from mere possession of private keys.
• Interaction with Article 9. Digital assets can serve as collateral for secured transactions under Article 9. Article 12 establishes how priority is determined among competing security interests.

Common Cryptocurrency Disputes

Cryptocurrency matters that Oregon attorneys typically handle include:

• Exchange disputes — account freezes, wrongful liquidation, withdrawal denial, lost funds
• DFR investigation response — responding to inquiries, civil investigative demands, and enforcement proceedings
• Securities fraud claims — token sales that failed to comply with ORS Chapter 59
• Smart contract disputes — breach of terms encoded in a smart contract, failed executions, protocol exploits
• Wallet and custody disputes — theft, access denial, third-party custody failures
• Investment scheme litigation — Ponzi schemes, fraudulent yield platforms, rug pulls
• Business disputes — cryptocurrency payment disputes between contracting parties

If You Receive a Notice from Oregon DFR

The Oregon Division of Financial Regulation has authority to issue Civil Investigative Demands, conduct examinations, and initiate enforcement proceedings under ORS Chapter 59. If you or your business receives a DFR inquiry regarding cryptocurrency activity, consulting an Oregon attorney before responding is advisable. The DFR's enforcement options include cease-and-desist orders, civil penalties, and referral to the Oregon Attorney General for litigation.

Frequently Asked Questions