Complaints

This profile includes complaints for LegalByte's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

LegalByte has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  LegalByte

  1209 Mountain Road Pl NE Ste N Albuquerque, NM 87110-7845

• 

  LegalByte

  2201 Menaul Blvd NE Ste A Albuquerque, NM 87107-1711

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/31/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Complaint: ********
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  
  
  This letter serves as a formal response to your demand for
  payment of USD 26,892, which you allege is due under a contract for services.
  We categorically deny any obligation to pay the requested
  amount. Our position is as follows:

  
  1) No Services Rendered, No Obligation:
  While a contract may have been signed, it is a fundamental principle of contract law that consideration must be exchanged for an obligation to arise. In this case, no services were rendered by LegalByte.
  Your own statement confirms that "LegalByte does not commence work without a confirmed payment." As the initial payment failed due to no fault of ours, and no subsequent valid payment was processed, no services were initiated.
  Therefore, as LegalByte failed to begin rendering any of its contractual obligations, we are not obligated to fulfill our payment obligations. The contract's terms are contingent upon the provision of services being rendered, which did not occur.
  The failure of the initial payment, regardless of the cause, resulted in a condition precedent not being met, thus relieving us of any further obligations under the contract.

  
  2)  Payment Failure and Lack of Consideration:
  The failure of the initial payment through ******, regardless of the reasons cited, effectively prevented the contract from being executed.
  The core principle of contract law requires an exchange of value. Since no services were provided, there is a lack of consideration, rendering the demand for payment invalid.

  
  3)  Dispute of Contractual Obligations:
  I dispute the assertion that we are "legally obligated to pay the full outstanding balance." The contractual obligations were contingent upon the provision of services, which, as you acknowledge, did not occur.
  The attempt to hold us to the contract without the exchange of services is unjust and lacks legal merit.

  
  4)  Regarding Alternative Payment Options:
  While you state alternative payment options were provided, we maintain that we were under no obligation to utilize these options, given the lack of services rendered.
  The provision of alternative payment options does not create a new obligation where none previously existed.
  
  5)  Rejection of Bad Faith and
  Extortion Allegations:
  While you deny allegations of bad faith and extortion, the demand for payment for services never rendered is, at a minimum, unreasonable.
  
  Therefore, we reiterate that we are not obligated to pay the requested USD
  26,892 as the agreement clearly states the fees are for services rendered, a no
  services were ever rendered due to the delay in payment processing with ******

  
  We advise that any further attempts to collect this disputed
  amount will be met with appropriate legal action.
  
  Regards,
  
  **** ******
  
  
  
   

  LegalByte, at this time, requested that I remit funds via cryptocurrency, a method I was already hesitant to use due to the prior theft, and my credit card balance had not been resolved. When I offered to make payment via *****, they suggested payment via unfamiliar options **** and *******, which raised additional concerns since they did not accept any traditional banking payment options.
  I am filing a formal complaint/investigation into LegalByte's business practices and policies. It is evident that LegalByte is claiming that they have provided services, despite explicity stating that they could not proceed with my case due to a payment issue that is not my responsibility. This course of conduct demonstrates not only bad faith and deceptive business practices but also constitutes a form of extortion.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/02/2025

  To Whom It May Concern,
  
  We are responding to the complaint filed against LegalByte, which contains multiple inaccuracies and misrepresentations. The complainant’s claims are factually incorrect and fail to acknowledge their legally binding contractual obligations.
  
  On 7 March 2025, the complainant entered into a legally binding service agreement with LegalByte for a total fee of USD 26,892. To accommodate the complainant’s financial situation, we offered a payment plan consisting of four equal instalments, with the first instalment of USD 4,617 due upfront to commence services.
  
  The complainant proceeded to make this initial payment via credit card using our ****** payment link. However, shortly after the transaction was processed, ****** flagged the payment as high risk and automatically initiated a refund. LegalByte had no control over this decision and did not retain the complainant’s funds at any point.
  
  Payment Failure and LegalByte’s Response
  
  Upon learning of ******’s decision, we immediately informed the complainant that their payment had been flagged and refunded, and we advised that the refund would be processed by 12 March 2025. We also clearly stated that, since the payment was unsuccessful, we could not proceed with any services until an alternative payment was received.
  
  By 13 March 2025, the complainant had neither received confirmation of the refund nor made an alternative payment. Instead, they unilaterally initiated a chargeback dispute with their credit card provider, Citi, despite already being aware that ****** had processed a refund and that an alternative payment method was required.
  
  To resolve this issue and allow services to commence, we offered the complainant multiple alternative payment options, including cryptocurrency, ****, and *******. However, the complainant refused all these options and insisted on using *****, a service that LegalByte does not accept due to geographical limitations.
  
  The Complainant’s Allegations Are Baseless
  
  1.The complainant remains legally obligated to pay the full outstanding balance
  
  •The complainant signed a contract agreeing to pay USD 26,892 for our services.
  •The first instalment of USD 4,617 failed due to ******’s internal risk policies, not any action on LegalByte’s part.
  •This does not absolve the complainant of their obligation to pay.
  
  2.No services were provided because no valid payment was received
  
  •LegalByte does not commence work without a confirmed payment.
  •The complainant’s claim that we falsely represented having provided services is therefore false.
  
  3.We acted transparently and in good faith
  
  •We immediately informed the complainant of the ****** refund and provided multiple alternative payment options.
  •The complainant’s refusal to use any of these options does not constitute bad faith or deceptive business practices on our part.
  •LegalByte has at no point misrepresented the situation or attempted to pressure the complainant into making a payment through any specific method.
  
  4.The allegations of bad faith and extortion are entirely unfounded
  
  •LegalByte operates with full transparency and professionalism.
  •Our refusal to commence services without receiving payment is standard business practice, not extortion.
  •The complainant’s assertion that they were “forced” into alternative payment methods is incorrect—we merely provided available options.
  
  Conclusion
  
  The complainant remains in legal debt for the full service amount of USD 26,892, with the first instalment of USD 4,617 still outstanding. Their decision to dispute the payment rather than resolve the issue through a valid alternative method does not negate their contractual obligations.
  
  LegalByte reserves the right to pursue collection of the outstanding debt should the complainant fail to honour their agreement.
  
  We request that the BBB dismiss this complaint as unfounded and without basis.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *****
  LegalByte
  
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/07/2025

  Dear Ms. *******,
  
  Thank you for providing LegalByte LLC the opportunity to address the complaint filed by Mr. **** ******. We take all customer concerns seriously and are committed to resolving disputes transparently and in accordance with the law. Below is our detailed response to the issues raised:
  
  1. Contractual Obligations and Consideration

  Mr. ****** executed a legally binding agreement with LegalByte LLC, effective immediately upon signing, as explicitly stated in the contract terms. Contrary to his assertions, services commenced the moment the agreement was signed, not upon receipt of payment. Our forensic and legal teams initiated preparatory work, including:
  
  - Case strategy development.
  - Resource allocation and workflow planning.
  - Preliminary research into the matter.
  
  Under contract law, consideration is fulfilled through mutual promises: Mr. ******’s promise to pay and LegalByte’s promise to perform services. The agreement does not condition services on upfront payment, nor does it include a “condition precedent” requiring payment to trigger obligations.
  
  Relevant Contract Clauses:
  
  - Section 3(a): “Services commence upon Client’s execution of this Agreement.”
  - Section 14: “All sales are final. Cancellation is subject to a 25% penalty fee if services have not commenced.”
  
  Mr. ******’s claim that “no services were rendered” is factually incorrect. While no final deliverables were issued, preparatory work constitutes performance under the contract.
  
  2. Payment Failure and Client Responsibility

  The initial payment failure via ****** was due to issues with Mr. ******’s financial institution, not LegalByte. We provided multiple payment alternatives (ACH, wire transfer, USDT) and extended deadlines to accommodate him. His refusal to utilize these options does not negate his contractual duty to pay.
  
  Key Points:
  
  - Invoices with banking details were sent repeatedly (attached as Exhibit A).
  - The contract explicitly states that payment delays do not absolve the client of liability.
  - Under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, Mr. ****** remains bound to his obligations regardless of payment processing issues.
  
  3. Fabricated Legal Counsel and AI-Generated Claims

  - Mr. ******’s references to “legal counsel” lack credibility.

  Notably:

  - He has repeatedly failed to provide his attorney’s contact information despite requests.
  - His arguments mirror generic, AI-generated language (e.g., misapplication of New Mexico Rule 1.5 without context).
  
  This pattern of dishonesty undermines his complaint’s validity and suggests bad faith.
  
  4. Debt Collection and Allegations of Harassment

  LegalByte’s communications adhered to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Notices about collections were factual disclosures, not harassment. After 30+ days of non-payment and ignored resolutions, we engaged ***** Financial, a licensed agency, as a lawful last resort.
  
  Consequences of Non-Payment:
  
  - Statutory interest (6% annually in Washington, D.C.).
  - Credit bureau reporting.
  - Potential litigation by the agency.
  
  5. Resolution Offer Reiterated

  Despite Mr. ******’s breaches, we remain open to resolving this amicably:
  
  Option 1: Settle the debt with ***** Financial.
  Option 2: Cancel services with a 25% penalty ($6,723), a goodwill gesture beyond contractual requirements.
  
  This offer expires on April 15, 2025.
  
  6. Rebuttal of Defamatory Allegations

  Claims of “extortion” or “unethical conduct” are baseless. LegalByte operates in full compliance with laws and ethical standards. We reserve the right to pursue defamation claims if these accusations persist.
  
  LegalByte LLC has acted in good faith throughout this engagement. Mr. ******’s refusal to honor his contractual obligations, coupled with fabricated claims, leaves us no choice but to defend our position vigorously. We trust this response clarifies the matter for the BBB and demonstrates our commitment to ethical business practices.
  
  For your records, we have attached:
  
  - Signed contract
  - Payment invoices and communications 
  
  Should you require further documentation, please contact me directly.
  
  Sincerely,
  ****** *****
  
  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/09/2025

  Complaint: ********
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  
  
  Dear
  Ms. *******,
  This
  letter serves as a formal rebuttal to LegalByte LLC's response to my complaint.
  We find their claims to be misleading, factually inaccurate, and demonstrably
  aimed at obfuscating their own breaches of ethical and contractual obligations.

  
  1.
  Contractual Obligations and Consideration:
  LegalByte
  LLC's assertion that services commenced immediately upon signing is a gross
  misrepresentation. While the contract may state such, the practical reality and
  industry standards dictate that "preparatory work" must be tangible
  and demonstrably beneficial to the client to constitute valid consideration.
  Simply allocating resources and developing a "case strategy" without
  any concrete deliverables or client input does not fulfill the spirit or intent
  of a professional service agreement.
  The
  contract's Section 3(a) must be interpreted within the context of
  reasonable professional practice. The claim that "services
  commenced" without any client interaction or deliverables is fallacious.
  Section
  14's cancellation penalty is punitive and unreasonable, especially given
  the lack of demonstrable service provision.
  LegalByte
  LLC fails to provide specific evidence of the "preliminary
  research" and "case strategy development" they claim to
  have undertaken. General statements without supporting documentation are
  insufficient.
  The
  concept of "mutual promises" is misused. In professional
  services, the promise to pay is contingent upon the actual delivery of
  services, not mere internal preparation.

  
  2.
  Payment Failure and Client Responsibility:
  LegalByte
  LLC's attribution of sole responsibility for the payment failure is inaccurate
  and lacks substantiation. My banking records demonstrate that the payment was
  successfully debited from my account and remained in a pending state for seven
  days. During this period, ****** provided any communication regarding the
  alleged delay, necessitating a dispute initiation to recover the funds to my
  account. Furthermore, following the initial ****** transaction's delay due to
  an unspecified 'fraud' alert – which my bank did not corroborate with any
  corresponding notifications – LegalByte LLC's subsequent requests for
  alternative payment methods, including USDT, raised significant concerns
  regarding their operational transparency and commitment to client-centric practices.
  This divergence from standard banking protocols made me reassess the engagement
  in its entirety.
  Providing USDT as a payment option is highly irregular and raises questions about their financial practices especially when offering services to recovery stolen cryptocurrency.
  The
  claim that "invoices with banking details were sent repeatedly"
  is irrelevant if the service delivery was not adequately substantiated.
  The
  principle of pacta sunt servanda does not absolve LegalByte LLC of
  its responsibility to ensure clear and reasonable payment processes.

  
  3.
  Fabricated Legal Counsel and AI-Generated Claims:
  LegalByte
  LLC's accusations of fabricated legal counsel and AI-generated arguments are
  unsubstantiated and defamatory. The inability to immediately provide attorney
  contact information does not equate to any level dishonesty.
  The
  assertion that my arguments "mirror generic, AI-generated
  language" is a subjective and unsupported claim. Legal arguments are often
  draw from established legal principles, which may appear similar to
  AI-generated text.
  Accusing
  me of "bad faith" without concrete evidence is unprofessional
  and reflects poorly on LegalByte LLC's conduct.
  The
  reference to "New Mexico Rule 1.5" and its alleged
  "misapplication" requires specific context and proof, which
  LegalByte LLC fails to provide.

  
  4.
  Debt Collection and Allegations of Harassment:
  LegalByte
  LLC's defense of their debt collection practices is inadequate. The FDCPA does
  not grant carte blanche for aggressive or unreasonable collection tactics.
  The
  engagement of ***** Financial after a mere 30 days is excessively rapid
  and suggests a predatory approach.
  The
  threat of "credit bureau reporting" and "potential
  litigation" is intended to intimidate, not to resolve a dispute.  I hereby reserve all rights to pursue
  legal remedies for any damages to my creditworthiness or reputation
  resulting from such actions.
  The
  claim that all communications were "factual disclosures" is
  subjective and requires scrutiny.

  
  5.
  Resolution Offer Reiterated:
  LegalByte
  LLC's "resolution offer" is a thinly veiled attempt to extract
  payment for services that were never rendered.
  The
  25% penalty fee is arbitrary and punitive, especially considering the lack
  of demonstrable service delivery. Please provide detail documents and
  communications of what services were provided to me to show the commencement
  of the agreement since it was communication that not actions on my case
  could commence until the payment was processed.  
  The
  deadline of April 15, 2025, is an artificial constraint designed to
  pressure me.

  
  6.
  Rebuttal of Defamatory Allegations:
  LegalByte
  LLC's threats of defamation claims are a transparent attempt to silence me.
  Their claim of operating "in full compliance with laws and ethical
  standards" is contradicted by their actions and the lack of substantive
  evidence provided.
  The
  claims of "extortion" and "unethical conduct" are
  valid concerns given the circumstances.
  LegalByte
  LLC's refusal to provide detailed documentation of their alleged
  "preparatory work" is telling.

  
  Conclusion:
  LegalByte
  LLC's response is characterized by:
  Lack
  of substantive evidence.
  Misrepresentation
  of contractual obligations.
  Unethical
  and unprofessional conduct.
  Attempts
  to intimidate me and coheres payment for services never rendered.

  
  We
  urge the BBB to thoroughly investigate these claims and hold LegalByte LLC
  accountable for their unethical practices.
  I
  respectfully request a full refund of any monies paid, and that LegalByte LLC
  cease all collection activities.

  
  Sincerely,
  ****
  ******
  
  
  
  Regards,