A limited number of Greenberg Traurig documents have appeared on the dark web after an unauthorized actor accessed them, the international law firm has said.

Reuters reported on Sep. 10 that Greenberg Traurig had confirmed the unauthorized access and dark web posting. The firm described the number of documents as limited. The supplied account does not identify what the documents contained or say how many people, if any, were affected.

The disclosure comes after other law firms reported unauthorized access to systems holding personal information. The incidents did not all involve the same type of data or method of attack, but several exposed records that firms kept for clients and others who dealt with them.

Law firm breach reports include identity and health records

In March, Taft Stettinius & Hollister detected unusual activity on one of its systems, according to Reuters. The incident exposed the client’s Social Security numbers. Reuters also reported that London-based Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer disclosed unauthorized access in May involving Social Security numbers, government identification numbers, and health records.

A separate alleged breach at WilmerHale in May led to a proposed class action in July. The lawsuit concerns the alleged exposure of information held by the firm; the filing of a proposed class action does not establish the allegations as fact.

Goodwin Procter disclosed another incident on Aug. 7. Later that month, Quinn Emanuel said a social-engineering attack had compromised one account and exposed files stored in it. In a social-engineering attack, the attacker uses deception to gain information or access, rather than necessarily breaking into a system through a software flaw.

The affected records also differ from case to case. Greenberg Traurig has described documents posted on the dark web, while the reports about Taft and Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer identify particular categories of personal data. Quinn Emanuel’s disclosure concerns files accessible through a compromised account. The available details do not establish that the Greenberg Traurig documents contained the same kinds of information reported in the other incidents.

Cyber incident data shows the scale of the problem

Reuters said BakerHostetler handled nearly 60 cybersecurity incidents involving law firms in 2025, almost twice the number it handled in 2024. The figure describes matters handled by BakerHostetler, not a count of every breach at a law firm during either year.

In its 2026 incident-response report, BakerHostetler analyzed more than 1,250 data security incidents across industries in 2025. Phishing was the leading identified cause, accounting for 30% of incidents. The firm said outside vendors were the cause in 25% of the matters it analyzed.

The report also tracked what happened after incidents were disclosed. BakerHostetler said class actions were filed in 14% of incidents in 2025, up from 9% in 2024. Among the incidents in its dataset that were disclosed, lawsuits followed 68 of 482 in 2025, compared with 51 of 518 in the previous year.

BakerHostetler’s figures cover clients across several industries, so they should not be read as rates specific to law firms. Its report placed business and professional services behind health care and finance and insurance among the sectors represented in the incidents it handled.

Crypto customer data has also been exposed through service providers

For U.S. crypto customers, a separate set of disclosures shows how personal details can be exposed even when a company says its users’ funds or wallet credentials were not accessed.

In May 2025, U.S. exchange Coinbase disclosed that criminals had bribed overseas support agents to obtain customer information. The breach affected 69,461 users and included names, addresses, phone numbers, and images of government IDs. Coinbase said passwords, private keys, and customer funds were not compromised. The exchange rejected a $20 million ransom demand and offered a reward of the same amount for information leading to the attackers’ arrest and conviction.

Hardware wallet companies have reported incidents involving firms that process orders or send customer messages. In January, Ledger said unauthorized access to e-commerce partner Global-e had exposed order information belonging to some people who bought products through Ledger.com. A Ledger spokesperson told Decrypt that the accessed information was held in Global-e’s systems and included data related to purchases for which Global-e acted as the merchant of record.

In August, SafePal said a flaw in an order-tracking plug-in exposed information belonging to about 39,798 customers. The records included names, email addresses, shipping addresses, phone numbers, and purchase details. SafePal said the incident did not affect wallet credentials or payment information; it also said it had fixed the flaw and notified affected customers.

Trezor has reported two distinct incidents involving outside providers. As previously covered by crypto.news, the wallet maker said information belonging to more than 80,000 customers was exposed through shipping provider ShipMonk. Trezor said its own systems, hardware wallets, private keys, and recovery phrases were not compromised. Its expanded disclosure included records belonging to about 67,000 additional U.S. customers who had placed orders between November 2019 and August 2021.

On Sep. 9, Trezor warned that an attacker had breached its third-party email provider and sent phishing messages posing as urgent security alerts. The emails falsely claimed that a hardware flaw put users’ recovery phrases at risk. Trezor said it had taken down the domain used in the attempt and was investigating. BitBox warned users the same day about emails impersonating its company and said its newsletter provider was likely compromised.

Earlier in 2026, scammers also sent physical letters posing as notices from Trezor and Ledger. The wallet phishing letters directed recipients to scan QR codes and enter their recovery phrases on malicious websites. Trezor and Ledger said they do not ask users to share recovery phrases through websites or other outside channels.

Bitcoin market sentiment has risen above 89 on an index tracked by CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost, reaching its highest level since March 2024 before easing back.

CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost said the last comparable burst of bullish sentiment came in March 2024. His measure briefly climbed above 89 out of 100 as Bitcoin rose, putting it in the range he describes as “extreme greed.”

The reading has since moved down from its peak, according to Darkfost, even as Bitcoin attempts to hold its current price. He cautioned that unusually optimistic or pessimistic readings deserve attention because they can appear around market turning points. His observation identifies a risk to watch; it does not establish that Bitcoin has begun a reversal.

Bitcoin sentiment has cooled from its peak

Darkfost’s comparison with March 2024 concerns the sentiment measure cited in his post. The measure incorporates Fear & Greed data alongside other inputs, so its reading of more than 89 should not be presented as the current value of every crypto sentiment index.

For comparison, Alternative.me’s separate Fear & Greed Index stood at 63, classified as “greed,” when checked for this report. Its page showed 56 the previous day, 73 a week earlier, and 29 a month earlier. Alternative.me says its index draws on Bitcoin volatility, trading momentum and volume, social-media activity, Bitcoin’s share of the crypto market, and search trends.

The two readings serve different purposes in the story. Darkfost’s figure describes the high reached by the measure he follows; Alternative.me’s figure provides a separate, current snapshot of market mood. Neither reading shows how much Bitcoin investors have bought or sold, and neither gives a price target.

Darkfost also drew a distinction between sentiment during a sustained bear market and sentiment as prices change course. In his account, negative readings can persist for long periods when the market is weak. Extreme readings become more useful to monitor when investor behavior changes alongside price, although his post does not specify a date or price at which Bitcoin might turn.

Bitcoin trades below its recent $80,000 test

At the time of the latest CoinGecko price check, Bitcoin traded near $77,300. The site showed a 24-hour low of about $76,393 and a high of about $79,607, placing the current price well below the top of that daily range. Live prices and rolling ranges will change before publication.

The price action gives context to Darkfost’s point about sentiment cooling while Bitcoin tries to hold its level. It does not show when his index reached its high, so the market data should not be used to claim that a specific intraday move caused the reading above 89.

Recent crypto.news coverage has tracked the price levels around the pullback. On Sep. 10, a Bitcoin technical report recorded a fall below $78,000 and identified the lower daily Bollinger Band near $76,392 at the time. The report also put the band’s midpoint near $78,650 and its upper boundary near $80,907. Those were chart readings from Sep. 10, rather than newly calculated levels for the present session.

Earlier in the week, analysts told crypto.news that Bitcoin could remain under $82,000 before the Federal Reserve’s next decision. In the Sep. 7 report, CoinEx chief analyst Jeff Ko described support around $78,000–$79,000 and a cap near $82,000. Bitcoin’s later move below $78,000 means the quoted support range has already been tested; Ko’s earlier levels should be read in the context of when he gave them.

The same Sep. 7 report said U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs had taken in about $986.9 million during the previous trading week, bringing three weeks of inflows to roughly $3.8 billion. Ko said he wanted to see further inflows while Bitcoin traded sideways before calling the activity sustained accumulation. The following week’s fund data has provided a different result.

U.S. Bitcoin ETF flows have turned negative

During the Sep. 8–11 trading week, U.S.-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $462.7 million in net outflows, according to Farside data covered Saturday. The funds posted a net loss in each of the four sessions after U.S. markets closed for Labor Day on Monday, Sep. 7.

Thursday accounted for the largest daily withdrawal at $282.7 million. The net outflow eased to $13.2 million on Friday, while ARK 21Shares’ ARKB posted the largest weekly loss among individual Bitcoin funds at $234.2 million, according to the report. BlackRock’s IBIT lost a net $52.5 million over the four sessions.

Fund flows give U.S. investors another measure to follow alongside Darkfost’s sentiment reading, though they track different activity. Farside’s figures measure net subscriptions and redemptions in the listed products; they do not establish whether a particular ETF holder bought or sold Bitcoin directly. Nor does a weekly net outflow, on its own, explain a daily price move.

U.S. inflation data has also entered the market picture ahead of the Fed’s meeting. In its Aug. consumer price report, released Sep. 11, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said prices rose 3.4% over 12 months, matching July’s annual rate. Prices excluding food and energy rose 0.3% in August and 2.4% from a year earlier.

The Federal Reserve calendar lists its next policy meeting for Sep. 15–16. The meeting date is confirmed, while its decision and any subsequent Bitcoin price response remain unknown.

UK crypto firms have been given a five-month application window, from Sep. 30 to Feb. 28, to seek Financial Conduct Authority approval before a new regulatory regime is expected to take effect in October 2027.

The Financial Times published a letter from Zumo founder and CEO Nick Jones, who said the application window gives firms a route into a UK market that some financial institutions had previously considered “too difficult.” In his view, uncertainty over regulation and the risks posed by business partners had held institutions back, even where they understood digital assets and wanted to offer related products.

The FCA’s published timetable puts an exact date on the next step: applications open on Sep. 30, 2026, close on Feb. 28, 2027, and the new regime is expected to begin on Oct. 25, 2027. The regulator opened a pre-application support service in July to help firms prepare before they file.

UK crypto firms must apply for new permissions

Under the incoming rules, a firm carrying out regulated crypto activities will need FCA authorisation or a change to its existing permissions. The FCA says its current crypto oversight has focused mainly on anti-money-laundering registration and financial promotions; the 2027 framework will bring more activities into its financial-services rulebook.

According to the FCA’s final policy statements, an existing registration will not turn into permission under the new regime. Firms already registered under money-laundering rules, as well as companies authorised for other financial services, must apply if their crypto activities fall within the new rules. As crypto.news previously reported, the requirement covers businesses such as trading platforms, custodians, stablecoin issuers and firms offering certain staking services.

Filing during the five-month window also affects whether an existing business can keep operating while its application is assessed. The FCA says firms that apply on time may continue specified activities under transitional provisions if they meet the conditions. Firms applying after Feb. 28, 2027, cannot rely on those provisions and may have to stop the relevant activities until they receive approval. An application itself does not grant permission, and the regulator has not guaranteed a decision on every timely filing before the regime starts.

The rules set requirements for firms’ finances, governance and conduct, alongside activity-specific standards. The FCA’s June policy statements address matters including stablecoin issuance, crypto custody, disclosures when assets are offered or admitted to trading, and controls against market abuse. Applicants can therefore assess the rules for the services they plan to offer, rather than treating authorisation as a single permission for every crypto product.

Financial firms expand access through crypto ETNs

Jones pointed to Hargreaves Lansdown as an example of a traditional investment platform entering the market. The company began offering nine Bitcoin and Ether exchange-traded notes to eligible clients on Sep. 3, as covered on crypto.news. The notes give investors exposure to the assets’ prices; customers do not buy coins directly or control the private keys to them.

Access is limited to clients using the platform’s Advanced Investing service. According to Hargreaves Lansdown’s product details reported by crypto.news, customers must self-certify as advanced investors, pass a test about the products’ risks, and complete a 24-hour cooling-off period. The platform’s launch followed the FCA’s decision to let UK retail investors buy qualifying crypto ETNs from October 2025.

Hargreaves Lansdown’s ETN offering and the coming authorisation process concern different parts of the market. The ETNs are listed investment products already available under FCA rules, while the new application window is for firms seeking permission to carry out activities covered by the 2027 crypto regime. Jones linked the two in his FT letter as evidence, in his assessment, that established financial companies are becoming more willing to develop UK crypto services.

The FCA has also considered another route for investment funds to gain exposure. In June, it proposed a 10% limit on crypto ETN holdings for certain authorised funds, while saying it was not then considering direct crypto ownership by those funds. The proposal was separate from the rules that already let eligible retail customers buy ETNs through investment platforms.

Offshore exchanges face an FCA application decision

For overseas businesses serving UK customers, the authorisation window presents a separate decision about whether to seek permission for covered services. In August, crypto.news reported Binance’s planned bid for an FCA licence, citing a Telegraph report. Binance had not publicly confirmed a filing, and the FCA’s existing restrictions on Binance Markets Limited remained in place.

Jones argued in his FT letter that more firms will need compliant local partners and operating systems as they prepare for UK rules. He described offshore provision and loosely organised business processes as models he expects the industry to move away from. Those are Jones’s expectations, rather than an FCA finding that offshore firms have already changed how they operate.

The US is addressing a different regulatory question. On Aug. 18, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed rules for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets, including proposed exemptions from securities registration. The proposal remains open to public comment and does not change the FCA’s requirements for firms conducting regulated activities in the UK.