Conduit Files Federal Lawsuit Against Tether Over $2.76 Million Freeze
DeFi infrastructure platform Conduit has launched legal action against Tether regarding a multi-million-dollar USDT asset freeze.

Decentralized infrastructure firm Conduit has initiated formal litigation in a New York federal court over an unresolved Tether asset freeze involving $2.76 million in stablecoin funds. The lawsuit asserts that the issuer of USDT has retained control over the assets for more than a twelve-month period without providing adequate legal justification or formal regulatory decrees.
According to court filings reported by The Block, Conduit alleges that Tether holds no lawful claim to the immobilized capital and has failed to substantiate its decision to block the address. The plaintiff is seeking the immediate release of the funds alongside compensatory damages resulting from prolonged capital illiquidity.
Tether routinely uses smart contract blacklisting capabilities to freeze tokens linked to suspected illicit finance, law enforcement requests, or sanction violations. However, the exact basis for the action taken against Conduit's balance has not been publicly detailed by the stablecoin company in legal proceedings.
The dispute highlights ongoing industry friction regarding the centralized control mechanisms embedded within major fiat-backed stablecoins. While smart contract freeze functions assist issuers in satisfying global compliance obligations, they also present operational counterparty risks for decentralized platforms managing sizable liquidity pools.
Legal observers will follow whether the federal court compels Tether to disclose the specific trigger for the address restriction. The litigation could set important precedents regarding the level of transparency stablecoin issuers must provide when executing administrative freezes on business counterparties.
Key takeaways
- Conduit is suing Tether in New York federal court over $2.76M in frozen USDT.
- The funds have reportedly been immobilized for over a year without formal explanation.
- The case underscores counterparty risks tied to centralized stablecoin freeze functions.
