SEC Triumphs in Landmark Crypto Case Against Coinbase

In a significant legal victory for the SEC, Judge Katherine Failla largely denied Coinbase's motion to dismiss the agency's lawsuit alleging the crypto exchange violated securities laws by offering unregistered products involving cryptocurrencies. Failla ruled that the SEC had sufficiently alleged that Coinbase's actions fell within the SEC's regulatory purview, rejecting Coinbase's claim that the SEC was engaging in "regulation by enforcement." The ruling highlights the ongoing legal battle between the SEC and the crypto industry over the classification of cryptocurrencies as securities, with the SEC asserting its authority to regulate the sector.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Prevails in Landmark Crypto Case Against Coinbase

In a significant victory for the SEC in its ongoing regulatory crusade against the burgeoning crypto industry, U.S. District Judge Katherine Failla has largely denied Coinbase's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the agency. In an 84-page opinion, Judge Failla held that the SEC had sufficiently alleged that Coinbase, the dominant crypto exchange in the United States, had contravened securities laws by offering cryptocurrency-related products to its users without registering with the agency.

The SEC initiated the lawsuit against Coinbase in June 2023, with Enforcement Director Gurbir Grewal asserting that the crypto company could not evade compliance with securities regulations simply because it found them unpalatable. After Coinbase filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, both parties presented their arguments to Judge Failla in a Southern District of New York court in January 2024.

Coinbase's Claims of "Regulation by Enforcement" Rejected

Central to Coinbase's defense was its longstanding contention that the SEC was engaging in a campaign of "regulation by enforcement" against the crypto industry. This strategy involves establishing new supervisory parameters for the sector through lawsuits rather than promulgating formal regulations. A key aspect of this concern pertains to the identification of cryptocurrencies that constitute securities and, therefore, fall within the SEC's jurisdiction. While SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has stated that the vast majority of cryptocurrencies meet the definition of securities, neither the agency nor Congress has yet established clear-cut rules.

Despite Coinbase's attempts to persuade Judge Failla of its position, she rejected its arguments, concluding that the SEC's allegations were sufficiently substantial to warrant a full trial. While her decision does not represent a final judgment, Judge Failla appeared to concur with the SEC's definition of crypto assets as securities, relying on precedent including the landmark Supreme Court Howey Test. Coinbase had attempted to argue that securities should be defined narrowly as formal investment contracts, but Judge Failla dismissed this assertion.

Major Questions Doctrine Arguments Fail to Sway Court

Beyond the intricate legal issues of securities law, Coinbase presented two broader arguments in its motion to dismiss. Judge Failla rejected one of these arguments, which alleged that the SEC had violated Coinbase's due process rights by failing to provide the industry with adequate notice that crypto assets traded on digital platforms could be considered securities. She reasoned that the SEC had provided sufficient notice through written guidance, litigation, and other actions.

However, Coinbase also attempted a more audacious argument by invoking the "major questions doctrine," a guiding principle established by the Supreme Court that restricts Congress from delegating matters of significant political or economic importance to agencies like the SEC. As the U.S. judicial system has become more conservative, with justices more inclined to limit the administrative powers of government agencies, Coinbase sought to argue that the SEC was overstepping its authority by impeding the growth of a nascent industry.

Again, Judge Failla rejected Coinbase's position, casting doubt on the notion that the major questions doctrine could apply to cryptocurrencies. Citing precedent, she wrote that the sector "falls short of being a 'portion of the American economy' bearing 'vast economic and political significance.'" Furthermore, she argued that the crypto industry "cannot compare with other industries the Supreme Court has found to trigger the major questions doctrine," such as energy markets.

She further contended that the SEC already possesses jurisdiction over the securities industry, which is "even broader than the markets for cryptocurrencies," and that the agency is not exceeding its Congressionally granted powers.

Mixed Verdict for Coinbase

While the theory was unlikely to resonate with federal judges, Coinbase's setback still represents a setback for the firm and the broader crypto industry, as similar lawsuits involving Binance and Kraken are pending. However, Coinbase did score a partial victory as Judge Failla dismissed a specific allegation in the lawsuit that claimed its Coinbase Wallet product operated as an unregistered broker.

"We’re pleased that yet another court has confirmed that, while the term ‘crypto’ may be relatively new, the framework that courts have used to identify securities for nearly 80 years still applies," an SEC spokesperson said in a statement provided to Fortune. "We will continue to protect investors against risks in the crypto markets when, as here, the securities laws are implicated."

When Fortune reached out for comment, a Coinbase spokesperson referred to a Twitter thread posted by the firm's chief legal officer, Paul Grewal, who wrote, in part: "We remain confident in our legal arguments, we look forward to proving we’re right."

Judge Failla has ordered both parties to submit a case management plan by April 19, 2024.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com