Thank you for cross referencing the Australian law, it does seem similar and as you noted the legal issue can trigger additional claims, and the same is true in

Thank you for cross referencing the Australian law, it does seem similar and as you noted the legal issue can trigger additional claims, and the same is true in the U.S. To take a stab at your questions regarding how such a claim might play out in the U.S. Say investor A put money into the DAO, based on statements in the marketing materials (example "the DAO is 100% secure") and said funds were lost. Investor A could file a law suit in their own jurisdiction, the claims would include but not necessarily be limited to fraud in the inducement, and the parties name might include but not be limited to a) the company who owns slock.it, b) the individual(s) who wrote the code for the DAO, c) the individuals who wrote the marketing materials the investor relied on, and d) the unknown individual(s) who were responsible for writing the smart contract that appropriated the investors funds without a vote (this may sound odd, but it is a regular occurrence typically naming defendant(s) John Doe(s)) Now it is almost impossible to say how the lawsuit would actually unfold. One example, none of the parties answers the lawsuit and the investor plaintiff can obtain a default judgment. In this example, the investor/plaintiff may take the judgment against defendant #1 (company behind slock.it, which I believe is company based out of Germany) and try to have the judgement enforced in Germany. Again I can't say for certain how that would play out. Another example, could be the defendants actually answer and defend the lawsuit, in which case the investor/plaintiff must prove their case at trial (but as we know, judgement can be obtained before trial at a motion like motion for summary judgment, but that would be rare in contract cases) or more generally the parties would settle. Now I'm just trying to give varying examples, and I can't stress enough this analysis is in no way exhaustive, the various defendants would certainly be able to raise defenses not discussed, the plaintiffs could bring claims not mentioned, and a default against John Doe(s) would be nearly impossible to enforce (unless at some point John Doe(s) identity comes to light. The major take away is the fact that the law provides remedies separate and apart from unwinding the DAO or getting the money back from the john Doe(s) who may likely never be identified.