US FTC v Ukrainian IT: Cross-border service of US court documents and enforceability in Ukraine
Markian Malskyy, Timur Bondaryev and Volodymyr Nakonechnyi
Arzinger Law Firm, Kyiv
Markian.Malskyy@arzinger.ua
Timur.Bondaryev@arzinger.ua
Volodymyr.Nakonechnyi@arzinger.ua
In June 2026, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought proceedings against Genesis Tech,1 probably the largest Ukrainian IT Group. FTC targets 15 companies and eight individuals behind a portfolio of online subscription products. At the FTC's request, the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO)2 imposing various interim reliefs, including asset freezes and prohibition of certain conduct. For Ukraine's IT sector, and not only Ukraine's, it is the case that will be shaping market practices.
At the same time, it also shows how quickly US proceedings concerning digital businesses can acquire a cross-border dimension. That cross-border dimension is not limited to the merits of the FTC's allegations.
This raises a separate and practical question for companies and individuals: when a US court grants urgent relief, what amounts to proper service in a foreign jurisdiction, and can that order actually be recognised and enforced there?
Without addressing the merits of the US proceedings, this article focuses on those two questions under Ukrainian law: the proper service of US judicial documents in Ukraine and the requirements for recognition and enforcement of TROs by Ukrainian courts.
Sending of a TRO by any means Is prohibited as a proper service under Ukrainian law
While issuing the TRO in the Genesis Tech case the US District Court followed a rather common approach for the US court proceedings, allowing service of the TRO 'by any means, including facsimile transmission, electronic mail or other electronic messaging, personal or overnight delivery, U.S. Mail or FedEx, by agents and employees of Plaintiff, by any law enforcement agency, or by private process server…'.
The question is whether such an approach is workable in Ukraine.
Both the US and Ukraine are parties to the 1965 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (the Hague Service Convention). The Convention applies 'in all cases, in civil or commercial matters, where there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad'.3 While the Hague Service Convention does not provide a definition of a 'civil matter', it shall be interpreted autonomously and in a liberal manner.4 It may be reasonably argued that the court proceedings initiated by FTC, brought under the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, qualify as a civil matter. Consequently, service of a US judicial document on a citizen of Ukraine or a company in Ukraine must go through Ukraine's designated Central Authority, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, and to proceed according to the Hague Service Convention.5
Within the Hague Service Convention's legal regime, service of the TRO through other means (diplomatic or consular agents according to Article 8; postal or other channel according to Article 10) mentioned in the main text of the Convention is prohibited as Ukraine made explicit declarations in this regard. Thus, within the Hague Service Convention's legal regime, sending of the TRO by email to a person located in Ukraine is prohibited as a proper service of a US judicial document.
Consequences of improper service under Ukrainian law
If a foreign court fails to comply with the procedure for service of judicial documents, the addressee stands, in the eyes of Ukrainian law, as a person who has not been served. This leads to a situation where legal consequences that would follow the proper service of the respective judicial document do not occur.
For example, if the party was not properly served with a writ of summons, it does not lose the right to claim it was not notified of the proceedings. If the party was not properly served with a judgment, the time for appeal does not start to accrue.
The Supreme Court's position is illustrative in this regard. For example, in its Resolution of 29 April 2022 in case No 905/830/21, the Court held that a court may perform procedural acts only within its own territory, and that documents transmitted without following the procedure prescribed by an applicable international treaty are not treated as judicial notices, summonses or judgments, but merely as private correspondence. It means the recipient may always argue they were not properly notified of the proceedings.6
The Supreme Court also highlights that service of a judicial document on a foreign individual or company outside the special procedure established by an international treaty may constitute a court's failure to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine.
What if Hague Service Convention's legal regime does not apply
Even if FTC proceedings are not treated as a civil matter for Convention purposes by the US court or the US Central Authority (e.g. arguing that the FTC is exercising its administrative powers), the result is the same.
In the absence of any bilateral treaty between the US and Ukraine on service of judicial documents, Ukrainian procedural rules apply within Ukrainian territory, reflecting the well-established principle that a court's authority does not extend beyond its own state's borders.7
Ukraine's procedural codes address execution of letters rogatory from foreign courts, but do not otherwise recognise any alternative channel of service - meaning that, absent a treaty, the only route available is a letter rogatory transmitted through diplomatic channels to a competent Ukrainian court.8 Service by any means therefore remains improper under Ukrainian domestic law as well, regardless of how the underlying FTC proceedings are characterised.
Recognition by a Ukrainian Court ('domestication') Is required for a TRO to be enforceable in Ukraine
Foreign judgments and orders are not automatically enforceable in Ukraine. Recognition by a Ukrainian court is required for foreign judgments and orders to be enforceable in Ukraine.
Under Article 81 of the Law of Ukraine on Private International Law 2005, foreign court judgments, including those rendered in civil, employment, family and commercial matters, may be recognised and enforced in Ukraine provided they have entered into legal force. Article 462 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine further requires that recognition and enforcement be grounded either in an international treaty or in the principle of reciprocity, which is presumed to exist unless proven otherwise.
There is no bilateral or multilateral treaty between the US and Ukraine on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Thus, the reciprocity principle and the rules of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine will apply.
Ukrainian law does not define a 'judgment' or a 'foreign judgment'. The word 'judgment' has a broad meaning in the Ukrainian procedural codes. It includes final decisions on the merits of the first-instance court (judgments), final decisions of appeal or cassation court (resolutions) and procedural orders (rulings). While some rulings do not require any enforcement in practice (e.g. a ruling to commence court proceedings), the other ones (e.g. a ruling to attach assets or freeze a bank account as interim measures), once they become final and binding, may be enforced through the system of public and private bailiffs, unless the international treaties of Ukraine provide to the contrary. Thus, in principle, US TROs as procedural orders could be recognised and enforced in Ukraine subject to certain procedural requirements.9
One of such procedural requirements is that the right to be heard of the party concerned shall be observed – the party shall be able to take part in the consideration of the case (present the case, present evidence, participate in oral hearing) as a result of a proper and timely notice of the proceedings (Article 468 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).
Where US TROs are obtained on an expedited basis, without notifying the defendants of the proceedings or of any oral hearing, the right to be heard is unlikely to be satisfied. The TRO itself, being the outcome of the court's ex parte consideration, cannot be treated as the prior notice that would have allowed the defendants to participate in the proceedings. On this basis, US TROs, like one obtained by FTC, is unlikely to be recognized and enforced in Ukraine.
Conclusion
The FTC proceedings against Genesis Tech illustrate a broader point for cross-border litigation involving Ukrainian parties. Whatever the merits of the underlying dispute, the way in which judicial documents are served may ultimately affect whether a resulting judgment or order can be recognised and enforced in Ukraine.
For lawyers litigating against Ukrainian counterparties in other jurisdictions, service should therefore be treated as more than a procedural formality. Where enforcement in Ukraine may eventually be required, the applicable rules on cross-border service should be considered from the outset. Failure to observe them may leave the Ukrainian party legally unserved and create a significant obstacle to recognition and enforcement at a later stage.
The practical takeaway is simple: when a judgment or order may ultimately need to be enforced in Ukraine, proper service is an important part of the enforcement strategy from day one.
---
Notes
1 Federal Trade Commission, 'FTC Sues to Stop Sprawling Enterprise Operating Unlawful Subscription Schemes' (9 June 2026) https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-sues-stop-sprawling-enterprise-operating-unlawful-subscription-schemes
2 Federal Trade Commission v GM UniverseApps Ltd et al, Case No 26-cv-05232 (ND Cal, 4 June 2026), 'Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order as Modified with Asset Freeze and Other Equitable Relief, and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue' https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Growthmind-Wisey-OrderonTRO-asfiled.pdf
3 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (adopted 15 November 1965, entered into force 10 February 1969) 658 UNTS 163, art 1.
4 Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Hague Service Convention, Report of the Special Commission (Hague Conference on Private International Law 1977) 3 https://assets.hcch.net/docs/62546dae-4491-41f3-99aa-9ee09586bee4.pdf.
5 Supreme Court of Ukraine, 'Civil Proceedings Are to Be Used Where at Least One of the Parties Is a Natural Person – Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court' (Supreme Court of Ukraine, 6 April 2018) https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pres-centr/news/518982/.
6 Supreme Court of Ukraine, Resolution of 29 April 2022, case No 905/830/21, Unified State Register of Court Decisions https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/104164904.
7 Ibid.
8 Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine 2004, arts 500–501.
9 Supreme Court of Ukraine, Resolution of 21 April 2022, case No 265/1411/21, Unified State Register of Court Decisions https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/104052660.