Ripple’s CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, has publicly criticized CoinDesk, a prominent cryptocurrency news outlet, for what he perceives as inaccurate reporting regarding a recent court ruling concerning XRP. The ruling, delivered by California District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton last week, saw the dismissal of all claims alleging securities law violations against Ripple. However, a state law claim related to a 2017 statement by Garlinghouse is slated for a jury trial.
Despite the clarity of the court’s decision, some media sources misinterpreted it, suggesting that the California ruling might affect XRP’s classification as a non-security, as previously determined by New York federal Judge Analisa Torres. Garlinghouse promptly dismissed these misconceptions, asserting that XRP inherently does not qualify as a security.
Garlinghouse expressed disappointment with CoinDesk for perpetuating misinformation about XRP. He refuted claims attributed to Judge Hamilton by the outlet, stressing, “The CA Judge did NOT call XRP a security.” Garlinghouse underscored that both XRP and Bitcoin are recognized under U.S. law as non-securities, offering regulatory clarity uncommon among digital assets. He also pointed out that CoinDesk had deleted a misleading tweet and corrected a headline related to the topic, highlighting what he views as a pattern of inaccurate reporting.
Adding to the criticism, attorney Bill Morgan, known for his advocacy in the XRP community, condemned CoinDesk for its portrayal of XRP’s legal standing. Morgan clarified that Judge Hamilton did not rule that XRP is or could be classified as a security, nor did she determine whether Ripple’s sales of XRP in the secondary market constitute investment contracts. In contrast, Morgan cited Judge Torres’ earlier ruling affirming XRP’s non-security status and dismissing Ripple’s programmatic sales as non-investment contracts. He emphasized that XRP currently enjoys greater legal clarity than Bitcoin.
In response to CoinDesk’s report, Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, reiterated these points, supported by the XRP community’s Community Notes feature. The overall sentiment underscores a strong objection to what is perceived as misleading information about XRP’s legal status.
Important note: This article serves informational purposes and does not constitute financial advice. Any opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily reflective of The Crypto Basic’s stance. Readers are advised to conduct their own research before making investment decisions, as financial losses may occur.
