[Ripple CEO slams CoinDesk for inaccurate XRP reporting]
California District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued an important ruling last week in a securities class action lawsuit against Ripple.
In the ruling, the judge dismissed all claims of securities law violations against Ripple but scheduled a jury trial over state law claims related to statements made by Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse in 2017.
Some media outlets misinterpreted the decision, suggesting that the California court ruling could change XRP’s non-security status as determined by New York federal judge Analisa Torres. In response, Garlinghouse refuted these misconceptions, emphasizing that XRP itself is not a security.
Despite these clarifications, a recent report from CoinDesk claimed that Judge Hamilton suggested that XRP may be a security. Garlinghouse criticized this, stressing that the California judge did not call XRP a security. He emphasized that currently in the United States, only XRP and Bitcoin have regulatory clarity and are classified as non-securities. Garlinghouse also recalled CoinDesk removing a misleading post and correcting a related headline, noting it was a pattern of inaccurate reporting.
Attorney Bill Morgan also criticized CoinDesk's misleading reporting, noting that Judge Hamilton did not rule that XRP is or could be a security. He added that the judge did not determine in summary judgment whether Ripple's planned sales on the secondary market constituted investment contracts, a special type of security. Instead, Judge Torres ruled that XRP was not a security and held that Ripple’s planned sales were not investment contracts. Morgan believes XRP itself currently has more legal clarity than Bitcoin.
Morgan criticized the media for spreading misleading information about XRP’s legal status nearly a year after the Torres ruling, saying it was deeply dishonest. The social notes feature on the X platform also refuted CoinDesk’s claims, citing comments from Ripple CLO Stuart Alderoty.
