Back in March 2024, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse made waves in the cryptocurrency world by announcing a victory in Ripple’s ongoing legal battle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In a bold video message, Garlinghouse confidently declared, “This case has ended. It’s over.”
However, recent developments have raised doubts about the finality of Garlinghouse’s proclamation. While the SEC had initially dropped its lawsuit against Ripple, further legal proceedings have cast a shadow of uncertainty over the situation.
Current Developments
In the months following Garlinghouse’s announcement, Ripple and the SEC have been navigating the final legal hurdles. Ripple agreed to withdraw its cross-appeal, and the SEC indicated its intention to do the same. Yet, the legal process is still ongoing, with a potential resolution date set for August 15.
Was Garlinghouse’s Announcement Premature?
Legal experts, including former SEC lawyer Marc Fagel, have suggested that Garlinghouse’s victory speech may have been premature. Fagel explained that such declarations could raise concerns, especially when unresolved legal matters are at play.
You’re just not understanding. The parties agreed to drop their appeals contingent on the district court vacating the injunction and lowering the penalties. The district court refused to do so. So now they plan to dismiss the appeals subject to the existing injunction. Get it?
— Marc Fagel (@Marc_Fagel) July 11, 2025
Fagel further noted, “I haven’t read all his comments, and I’m sure he was careful not to say anything explicitly false, but as this conversation shows, he confused a lot of people.”
The Real Situation
Clarifying the current status:
- Ripple and the SEC had reached an agreement to drop their appeals, contingent upon a judge revising previous rulings and reducing penalties against Ripple.
- However, the judge declined to make the requested changes.
- Despite this, both parties intend to proceed with dropping their appeals, though the original ruling against Ripple will remain in effect.
While the most contentious aspects of the lawsuit may have concluded, the legal landscape remains nuanced and complex, diverging from the seemingly definitive tone of Garlinghouse’s March announcement.