Same Name, Different Company: Blockstream Addresses $6.7M River Lawsuit

River’s $6.7 Million Lawsuit

On Sept. 11, a San Francisco bitcoin firm walked into federal court and sued a company still wearing the Blockstream name for $6.7 million. Fifteen days later, Blockstream Corp, led by Adam Back and creators of the Liquid Network, posted a statement that read like a disclaimer after the fact.

The news follows the Liquid Network breach, which saw nearly 4,000 BTC siphoned from the protocol earlier this month on Sept. 6. The attackers gave 3,400 BTC back but still have not returned nearly 600 BTC, despite Blockstream’s demands.

The Canada and U.S. services units, it said, have not been under its ownership, control or management since mid-2024. They kept the brand under license. The public spin-out of Blockstream Mining was announced in April 2025. River’s complaint names Blockstream Services Canada ULC, not the parent.

A Bill With the Wrong Famous Name

River Financial’s complaint, filed in the Northern District of California, alleges breach of a termination agreement. River says the deal called for $3.55 million in prepaid refunds and a $3.15 million early-termination payment. First-pass headlines on social media flattened the defendant into “Blockstream.” Some crypto outlets on X later corrected the record. This is because the sued firm is Blockstream Services Canada ULC, a mining operator that now runs as an independent company. Bitcoin.com News reported on the mining company spin-off in May 2025.

Blockstream’s Statement

On Sept. 26, Blockstream Corp posted this message in full:

“Since mid-2024, Blockstream Services USA and Blockstream Services Canada have not been under the ownership, control, or management of Blockstream Corp. The businesses were spun out as part of the Blockstream Mining business and have since operated as separate companies, with no shared equity ownership or management with Blockstream Corp. Following the separation, they retained the Blockstream name for a limited period under a brand licensing agreement.”

Here’s the caveat. That mid-2024 date sits almost a year before the April 2025 announcements that introduced Blockstream Mining as a newly independent company, with former mining president Chris Cook as CEO. The Blockstream Mining brand stayed on the door. Blockstream’s statement caught some flak from the community. “Misleading users by licensing your name to companies for money has a downside. Welcome to that downside,” one person wrote.

Another individual added:

“Two years later, you felt was the right time to let everyone know?”

Same Name, Different Company

Blockstream did not explain why the bitcoin mining firm retained its licensed name and only clarified the arrangement after online reports claimed Blockstream itself had been sued. If the separation occurred when the parent says it did, questions remain about how many counterparties continued writing checks under the Blockstream name after the two businesses had parted ways. On the other hand, some observers thanked Blockstream for publicly clarifying the situation.

“Good to have this on the record, a lot of people were still assuming the mining entities were tied directly to Corp,” one person wrote on X.

The discussion comes four days after the company published a “technical security assessment of the September 6 Liquid incident.” The Liquid Network report examines the underlying technical failure, chronicles the response timeline, and outlines a series of corrective measures, including stricter remediation standards, regular code reviews, adversarial testing, and an expanded bug bounty program, designed to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Still, it offers no timetable for restoring the L-BTC to BTC peg-outs.