XRP News Today: Ripple Wins Legal Milestone as Judge Rules Retail XRP Sales Not Securities

Ripple’s protracted legal dispute with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reached a significant milestone last year when Judge Analisa Torres issued a ruling on the legal status of XRP. The decision clarified that retail sales of XRP do not fall under the category of investment contracts, thereby placing them outside the SEC’s jurisdiction. This ruling has been instrumental in shaping the regulatory landscape for digital assets, despite ongoing debates from Bitcoin advocates who argue that XRP lacks a clear classification.

Ripple’s lawyer, Bill Morgan, has directly addressed these arguments, asserting that legal clarity has been established in the courtroom. Morgan highlighted that the core issue in the SEC’s lawsuit against Ripple was not about labeling XRP as a security or commodity, but whether the nature of its sale to investors met the criteria of an investment contract under existing securities law. Judge Torres found that institutional sales of XRP did meet this definition, while retail sales did not. This dual outcome provided a nuanced legal framework that differentiates XRP’s treatment based on how and to whom it was sold.

Morgan explained that US courts do not assign labels to digital assets; instead, they resolve disputes based on the facts of a case. Therefore, the question of whether XRP is a security or commodity is irrelevant. The clarity comes from how the court interpreted the law in the context of XRP’s distribution—a distinction often overlooked by critics.

Bitcoin supporters, often referred to as Bitcoin Maximalists or “Maxis,” have argued that because XRP has not received a classification from regulatory bodies such as the SEC or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), it remains in a legal grey area. They contrast this with Bitcoin’s status as a commodity recognized by both agencies, suggesting this places Bitcoin on firmer regulatory footing. Morgan challenged this logic, stating that classification is not absolute and can vary depending on the legal framework of different countries. For instance, Australian authorities treat Bitcoin as property rather than a commodity. He noted that insisting on a single, universal classification is legally flawed and undermines how the court system functions in the US. In his view, the ruling from Judge Torres has already settled the question of XRP’s legal status for retail sales, and that alone constitutes meaningful clarity.

In addition to the courtroom victory, Ripple has also welcomed legislative developments aimed at improving the regulatory environment for digital assets. Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, endorsed the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act passed in the US last week, which aims to provide clearer rules for the classification and regulation of cryptocurrencies. Morgan echoed this sentiment, adding that clarity should come through legal outcomes rather than political declarations or market assumptions. He maintained that the court ruling on XRP offers a strong precedent for how digital asset transactions should be assessed going forward. Rather than fixating on labels, he said, regulators and industry participants should focus on how assets are used and sold in practice.

In a symbolic gesture of reconciliation, Ripple co-founder Brad Garlinghouse donated the “Skull of Satoshi” artwork—often seen as a satirical emblem of crypto culture—to the Bitcoin community. While largely symbolic, the move appeared to aim at diffusing hostilities between supporters of rival blockchain platforms following years of animosity.