Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) introduced a new category of digital asset with distinct legal characteristics. Unlike fungible cryptocurrencies, NFTs are uniquely identifiable, often associated with specific creative works, and traded through marketplaces with their own terms and conditions. The legal issues that arise are correspondingly distinctive: questions about what is actually being sold, what rights transfer with the token, how disputes about authenticity or provenance are resolved, and how intellectual property law interacts with blockchain ownership.
UAE law has developed substantially in addressing these issues, particularly through the DIFC’s Digital Assets Law of 2024 and the maturing jurisprudence of the DIFC Digital Economy Court. This guide sets out the main legal issues and the available remedies.

Owning an NFT means owning a specific token on a blockchain. The token is a cryptographic record that identifies the holder as the owner of that specific unit. Under DIFC Law No. 2 of 2024, the token is intangible personal property, with the same legal characterisation as fungible cryptocurrencies.
What the token does not automatically include is intellectual property rights in any associated work. An NFT associated with a digital image, video, or piece of music typically does not transfer copyright in that work to the holder. What the holder owns is the token and whatever specific rights the issuer of the NFT granted, which may include limited usage rights, commercial rights, or no IP rights at all.
The specific rights bundle depends on the NFT’s terms, which are usually set by the project or marketplace at issuance. Sophisticated buyers review these terms before purchase. Many buyers do not, which is the source of a substantial share of NFT disputes.

Authenticity and provenance disputes arise where the holder claims the NFT is not what it was represented to be. Common patterns include NFTs minted by parties without rights to the underlying work (the work was copied from another artist), NFTs whose metadata or linked content has been changed after purchase (the image referenced by the token URI is replaced), and counterfeit NFTs that imitate genuine project NFTs without authorisation.
Marketplace disputes arise between buyers, sellers, and the marketplace itself. Common patterns include disputed transactions where the marketplace allegedly executed a sale at a price the seller did not authorise, account freezes due to alleged terms-of-service violations, and disputes over marketplace policies on royalties, returns, or seller obligations.
Intellectual property disputes arise where third parties claim the NFT or its associated work infringes their rights. Common patterns include copyright claims (the work used in the NFT was copied without authorisation), trademark claims (the NFT uses or imitates a trademark), and right-of-publicity claims (the NFT depicts a person without consent).
Smart contract disputes arise where the NFT’s underlying smart contract executes in unintended ways. Common patterns include exploits that allow an attacker to transfer NFTs from holders’ wallets, royalty mechanisms that fail to function as documented, and burning or upgrading mechanisms that operate contrary to the project’s representations.

For NFT theft (where the holder’s wallet was compromised and NFTs transferred without authorisation), the remedies are similar to those for cryptocurrency theft. The DIFC Digital Economy Court can grant worldwide freezing orders, including against the wallets holding the stolen NFTs. Major NFT marketplaces will often freeze trading of identified stolen NFTs while the matter is being resolved, which prevents the stolen assets from being washed through subsequent transactions.
For authenticity disputes, remedies depend on the underlying facts. Where the NFT was misrepresented at sale (the seller falsely claimed it was an authentic project NFT when it was not), traditional misrepresentation remedies apply, including rescission of the sale and compensation. Where the project itself misrepresented what the NFT included, claims against the project may be available.
For intellectual property disputes, remedies follow IP law principles. Successful copyright holders can obtain injunctions preventing further sale of infringing NFTs and compensation for past infringement. Trademark holders can obtain similar remedies. The UAE has substantial IP enforcement infrastructure that applies to NFT disputes as it does to other IP infringement.

NFT disputes are typically cross-border. The project may be incorporated in one jurisdiction, the marketplace in another, the holder in a third, and the alleged infringer in a fourth. Effective recovery requires coordinated multi-jurisdictional action.
The DIFC’s common law framework and the UAE’s expanding network of judicial cooperation treaties have substantially improved the international enforceability of orders out of Dubai. Major NFT marketplaces, while incorporated abroad, generally cooperate with credible legal process from UAE courts where the dispute involves UAE residents or UAE-relevant activity.