PANews June 21 news, according to CoinDesk, a California judge ruled that the civil securities lawsuit against the encryption company Ripple will enter the trial stage, and partially rejected Ripple's motion for summary judgment. The case accuses Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse of violating state securities laws in 2017. At the same time, the jury will hear the dispute over whether Garlinghouse made "misleading statements" about securities sales in a television interview that year. Phyllis Hamilton, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, dismissed the other four charges in the class action lawsuit on Thursday, leaving only one individual claim under state law for trial. Ripple Chief Legal Officer Garlinghouse said he was pleased that the court dismissed all class action claims. The plaintiff alleged that Garlinghouse sold millions of XRP on multiple cryptocurrency exchanges in 2017 while claiming that he was "very bullish on XRP", suspected of violating California securities laws. Ripple lawyers argued that XRP does not meet the definition of securities under the Howey test, so there is no misleading statement claim.

In his ruling Thursday, Judge Hamilton rejected the reasoning of Southern District of New York (SDNY) Judge Analisa Torres, who ruled that XRP sold directly to retail investors did not meet all the criteria of the Howey test in a parallel case to Ripple. While Torres' ruling is a partial victory for Ripple, its impact appears limited. Last year, Torres' colleague in the Southern District of New York, District Judge Jed Rakoff, overturned Torres' ruling in another case, the SEC's lawsuit against Terraform Labs. In his ruling, Judge Hamilton emphasized that reasonable investors would not derive profit expectations from trends in the cryptocurrency market alone, but would consider Ripple's efforts to promote XRP in cross-border payments and other areas. Therefore, the court held that Ripple's actions would not cause investors to have profit expectations based on the efforts of others. Garlinghouse added in the statement that Torres' ruling in the SEC case "remains valid" and was not affected by this ruling.