It's been the source of never ending controversy since Roger Ver and his site Bitcoin.com began their marketing campaign for Bitcoin Cash.  But what they viewed as perhaps just 'bold marketing tactics' may actually be considered fraud in the eyes of the law.

The question is - can they legally say "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin" even though "Bitcoin" is older, and obviously much more popular?

Is it fraud if someone goes to Bitcoin.com, but then purchases Bitcoin Cash based on the information they received there - only later to find out they don't own the real original Bitcoin they believed they were buying?

Then throw in all the people who accidentally sent BCH to a BTC address and visa-versa - and these are the 'victims' this lawsuit claims to be for.

The just launched site bitcoincomlawsuit.info behind the pending lawsuit describes themselves as:

"A group of 600+ participants from influential industry leaders to community volunteers & contributors who are devoting their time and money to protect users from fraudulent businesses and help victims recover lost funds. Further details will be published after lawsuits have been filed"

Now in what may end up making their defense much harder, Bitcoin.com just last week took things a bold step further - they're now calling "Bitcoin Cash" simply "Bitcoin” within some areas of the site. The word “cash” is nowhere to be found - when they are actually referring to Bitcoin Cash.

It's one thing to say it's the "real bitcoin" in debates and marketing material - but downright dangerous to mislabel them within bitcoin.com, where wallet services are provided and confusion could lead to a massive loss of funds.

A bold and risky move of relabeling coins.

Papers have not yet been filed and those behind the lawsuit are currently gathering stories from users who feel they were misled and building up their case. They have also stated that when the time comes, they will be using the courts of the Caribbean island of St. Kitts - where Bitcoin.com is registered, in hopes of taking down the site entirely.

The basis of the lawsuit dates back to Ripple's former CEO and co-founder Chris Larsen.  Back in 2016 he signed an agreement with a company called "R3", a banking consortium.

In that deal, R3 claims there was a clear "option contract" - which gave the company the right to buy up to 5 billion XRP coins, at a locked in price of less than a penny.

Ripple's defense revolves around the contract being invalid, stating R3 grossly misrepresented their abilities as a company.  Claiming R3's CEO hyped up partnerships with Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and J.P. Morgan - when in reality, those companies were in the process of actually ending their relationships with R3.

"R3 had misrepresented its resources and current ability to perform solely to induce Ripple into executing the Agreements. For example, although R3 represented to Ripple that it would have access to its large consortium of leading banks, R3 knew and had reason to know that several key banks that would be instrumental to Ripple’s success would soon be departing from its consortium." Ripple said in their counter-claim against R3.

R3 says it's much more simple - Ripple just wanted to cut them out now that they weren't needed, stating Ripple wanted out of the agreement once they were “in the money.”

Giving more worry to Ripple's hopes of winning - a San Francisco court just denied Ripple's appeal.  Because of this, the case heads to R3's home of New York next.

Currently, R3 is pushing a competing product, also aimed at banks - blockchain software called "Corda".