On August 25, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision to deny consumers’ motion to intervene in the FTC’s suit against BF Labs, Inc. d/b/a/ Butterfly Labs (“Butterfly”). Alexander v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, No. 14-3286 (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2015). Butterfly marketed and sold bitcoin mining computers. In April 2014, two consumers filed a class action suit against Butterfly, alleging “deceptive and unconscionable business practices.” In September 2014, the FTC also filed suit against Butterfly, alleging “deceptive acts or practices.” The FTC sought preliminary injunctive relief, including staying all suits against Butterfly, which the district court granted. The consumers moved to intervene permissively and of right but the district court denied their motion; the consumers appealed the denial of their motion to intervene of right. In order to have standing to intervene, a party must establish injury, causation, and redressability. The Court of Appeals found the consumers failed to show injury because their alleged injury (risk of financial harm) is contingent on various factors, including the FTC winning its case and precluding their recovery. Even if the consumers had standing to intervene, the consumers must meet the requirements of Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; the intervenor must (i) have a recognized interest in the subject matter of the litigation that; (ii) might be impaired by the disposition of the case; and that (iii) will not be adequately protected by the existing parties. Any government entity, such as the FTC is presumed to be representing the interests of the public. Thus, the consumers had to meet a very high burden to show the FTC was not adequately protecting their interests in the case, which they did not.