EXHIBIT O Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document171-2 Filed 11/21/14 Page 1 of 7 Michael Foster From: Stuart Stephen Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 5:46 AM To: Michael Foster Cc: Jim Humphrey; Miriam E. Bailey; braden Subject: Fwd: Butterfly Labs - 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Hi Michael, | have now received a reply from the FTC. It's quite stern as | suspected and | also note that | have been cc'd to a mail address ‘blamer@spencerfane.com’, which is interesting. The part about replying to the original email is true, however my email from November 7th was a separate enquiry. | would therefore expect a separate response. | don't think this is unreasonable, do you? It is insightful in the second paragraph regarding who they are protecting. It would appear their existence is based around ‘protection of the public’ by stopping alleged illegal activity and not helping consumers caught in the crossfire. My understanding now is that those consumers caught in the middle have little-to-no hope, which is very disappointing when you consider how close many of us were to actually receiving physical hardware or a refund. | would have liked to reply to Gregory's email, but | suspect | would be in vain, so | have not. Regards, Stuart On 19 November 2014 19:48, Ashe, Gregory wrote: Mir. Stephen, Thank you for your email. We are sorry if you feel you have been ignored. When you first contacted the FTC in September, we thanked you for your information and stated that we would let you know if we needed anything further from you. Respectfully, we have not. Please note that the FTC does not stand in the shoes of consumers when bringing enforcement actions. Although the FTC acts to protect consumers, its mission is distinct from that of a private party. The FTC is a body charged with protection of the public and does not act in a representative capacity for consumers. Here, we believe that the evidence will show that Defendants violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making deceptive claims regarding delivery and profitability. And in the short term, preliminary injunction relief (including a continuation of the receivership and asset freeze) is warranted to prevent future law violations and to preserve the possibility for effective final relief. Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document171-2 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 7 1 While we appreciate your concerns over the course of this litigation, we respectfully would disagree with that assessment. Gregory Ashe Senior Staff Attorney Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20580 From: Stuart Stephen [mailt Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 4:20 AM To: Wong, Helen; Kosmidis, Teresa; Frazier, Leah; Ashe, Gregory Cc: eljreceiver@spencerfane.com Subject: Re: Butterfly Labs - 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Dear all, Please could someone kindly respond to my query from the 7th November. Thank you. Stuart Stephen On 7 November 2014 09:31, Stuart Stephen iS wrote: Dear Receiver/Helen Wong or whom it may concern, As a customer, whom the FTC is providing protection, | would like to understand if there is a process where | can voice my concern over the proceedings. The court action is costing the company large amounts of money and since BFL were shipping products and issuing refunds, the timing of the FTC action has been ill-thought and untimely. As proceedings have moved on, we have seen in the various court documentation that the costs for the intervention are largely being taken from the BFL bank accounts and not from FTC/govern funds. This.is.r ing the cust sjikelih f getting anything back at the end of this wate Uae is Sie i ing W ent de ails seb lea a Rt from BFL 2 was very high - there is plenty of evidence to show that products were being shipped. The difference between getting ‘cents on the dollar’ instead of receiving a working product would be an injustice and unfair, it is disproportionate. It is my opinion that the FTC is punishing customers and not protecting them. The only winners from this process is the lawyers and those providing services to the FTC. The customer is only picking up the scraps after FTC service providers take their slice of the cake. That is, if anything is left! Interestingly, | saw in the court documentation that the BFL defendants were denied money to pay legal expenses for court proceedings. | found this extremely hypocritical as the FTC appears to be happy to take funds from BFL for it's own expenses - again this seems disproportionate. As a customer affected, is there a process where | can officially lodge a complaint or make a statement? Seeing as it is customers who the FTC are claiming to protect, it would seem logical that the customer should be able to voice their concerns. Yours faithfully, Stuart Stephen On 25 September 2014 12:59, Wong, Helen wrote: Hi Stuart, Thank you for providing this information. We will let you know if we need to follow up. Best, Helen From: Stuart Stephen [mailto Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 05:19 AM To: eljreceiver@spencerfane.com ; Wong, Helen Cc: Stuart Stephen Subject: Re: Butterfly Labs - 4:24-cv-00815-BCW Dear Receiver/Helen Wong, Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document171-2 Filed 11/21/14 Page 4 of 7 3 Further to my previous email, | would like to offer more information. | ordered on 30th December 2013, with a view of receiving hardware in the region of Jan/Feb, although | expected it to arrive in Mar/Apr. As you can see from the internet archive 'wayback machine’ [1], this was a reasonable view to take. The advertised ‘bulk shipping’ window at the time was advertised as Jan/Feb. It is now nearing the end of September 2014 and | have still not received my hardware. | have also attached my invoice and proof of payment. | would also be willing to share any further information on request. | look forward to a prompt response to my query. Yours faithfully, Stuart Stephen [1] https: //web.archive.org/web/20131231191848/http: //www. butterfl On 24 September 2014 19:11, Stuart Stephen pe wrote: Dear Receiver/Helen Wong, | am a customer of Butterfly Labs, but reside in the UK. | would like to understand what is happening to Butterfly Labs and how this will affect my order of a Monarch 600GH/s bitcoin mining device. | am not familiar with United States law or practices, so the information must be detailed and clear. The timing of this intervention seems untimely based on evidence that customers have been receiving products. | feel that | was potentially a matter of weeks away from having a product delivered, Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document171-2 Filed 11/21/14 Page 5 of 7 4 | am obviously concerned that: a) My order will never arrive now. b) | will never get [all] my money back. c) The order will arrive, but because of the delay, be rendered useless. Bitcoin mining hardware delivery is time-sensitive, the longer it takes, the less useful it is. d) As a foreign purchaser, am | equally as protected as someone from the United States? | see there is a court case scheduled for 29th September to decide on how things will proceed. Is there somewhere that | can keep informed about this, possibly even listen/watch? For you information, my order is as follows:- ORDER # DATE SHIP TO ORDER TOTAL STATUS BFL-126078078 12/30/13 Stuart Stephen $2,188.00 Processing Stuart Stephen | look forward to a prompt response to my query. Yours faithfully, Stuart Stephen ee. .50315-8cw Document 171-2 Filed 11/21/14 Page 6 of 7 5 Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document171-2 Filed 11/21/14 Page 7 of 7 6