The lawsuit between the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and Ripple Labs, the creator of the cryptocurrency XRP, was one of the most important and high-profile cases in the crypto asset sector. It raised fundamental questions about how cryptocurrencies are classified and regulated in the United States.

Here are the main points for your article:

Beginning of the Action and SEC's Allegations

In December 2020, the SEC sued Ripple Labs and its executives, Brad Garlinghouse and Christian Larsen, alleging that they sold XRP in an unregistered securities offering, raising over $1.3 billion. The SEC argued that XRP should be considered a security under U.S. law because it met the criteria of the Howey Test. This test establishes that a transaction is an "investment contract" (and therefore a security) if it involves:

an investment of money

in a common company

with a reasonable expectation of profits

that will be derived from the efforts of others.

The SEC alleged that XRP buyers had a reasonable expectation of profits based on Ripple's efforts to develop the token's ecosystem and its utility.

Ripple's Arguments

Ripple denied the allegations, arguing that XRP was not a security but rather a digital currency or commodity. The company defended that XRP buyers did not have an expectation of profits directly tied to Ripple's efforts and that the cryptocurrency was traded on digital asset exchanges, similarly to other non-securities like Bitcoin or Ethereum. Ripple also criticized the SEC for not providing clear guidance on the classification of crypto assets, creating an uncertain regulatory environment.

The Decision of Judge Analisa Torres and Its Implications

In July 2023, Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York issued a summary judgment that was seen as a partial victory for both sides. The decision divided XRP sales into three categories, with different outcomes for each:

Institutional Sales: The judge ruled that direct sales of XRP to institutional investors, such as hedge funds, were unregistered securities offerings. In these cases, Ripple knew who it was selling to, and the buyers had an expectation of profits based on the company's efforts.

Programmatic Sales: The judge ruled that XRP sales on crypto asset exchanges to the general public did not qualify as securities. The decision highlighted that in these transactions, buyers did not have direct contact with Ripple and could not presume that their profits would be a direct result of the company's efforts. This was seen as a significant victory for the crypto industry, as it suggested that secondary sales on exchanges would not necessarily be classified as securities.

Other Distributions: Distributions of XRP to employees and third parties as a form of compensation were not considered securities offerings.

Judge Torres's decision established an important legal precedent, distinguishing the types of sales and the contexts in which a digital asset may or may not be considered a security.

Settlement and End of the Legal Battle

In 2024 and 2025, both sides decided to abandon their appeals and negotiate a settlement. Although Ripple was fined over $125 million in August 2024, the fines were later reduced to $50 million in a final settlement. Additionally, the SEC dropped all charges against executives Garlinghouse and Larsen, which represented a complete victory for them.

This agreement finalized the case and solidified Judge Torres's decision as the legal precedent for the sector. This means that while direct sales to institutional investors may be viewed as securities offerings, retail sales on crypto asset exchanges are likely not to be.

This case is crucial for your article because it is a milestone in the quest for regulatory clarity in the cryptocurrency space. The resolution of the lawsuit provides a foundation for the industry and regulators on how to navigate the fine line between a digital asset and a security.

#xrp #Binance #BinanceSquareFamily $XRP #BinanceSquareTalks