Interesting Dutch court case:
* customer of custodian wallet lost coins due to their own email getting hacked
* custodian had reminded customer to turn on 2FA, but he/she didn't
* judge decides that custodian has to refund 90% (only allocating 10% to the customers fault)
The main argument here is that the situation is similar to fiat banking, where a bank is expected to protect its customers to a very large extend, and generally has to pony up the money if things go wrong. In this case the custodian should have made 2FA mandatory, and knowingly took the risk of not doing so.
This sets a huge precedent for custodians that should dramatically increase their costs. Which makes self-custody more attractive. Which is good for Bitcoin.
