Not So Fast. Ripple’s Legal Woes Aren’t Quite Over.

It’s exciting times for Ripple’s native token XRP (CRYPTO: XRP), as the team celebrates the end of over four years of legal battles. The SEC is dropping its charges against many players in the crypto industry, and Ripple’s leadership says that includes XRP. As a result, Ripple’s fans say XRP is going to the moon.

Let’s dive into how it may unfold and why XRP’s legal status isn’t as clear-cut as it seems.

Without regurgitating years of legal back-and-forth, in 2020, the SEC brought charges against Ripple for selling unregistered securities. The question hinged on whether XRP — and other cryptocurrencies — should be traded as a security or a commodity.

In 2023, U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres made a split ruling, saying Ripple’s sales to retail investors did not break the law. Following the decision, most big crypto exchanges relisted XRP for U.S. investors.

However, Judge Torres also said Ripple’s direct sales to institutions constituted securities trading and had broken investment law. She fined Ripple $125 million. The court issued what’s known as an “obey-the-law” injunction — basically saying Ripple can’t break the same law again.

The SEC appealed. Ripple counter-appealed. Now, Ripple says both sides will drop their appeals. The proposal is that the court drops the injunction, the SEC keeps $50 million of the fine, and returns the remaining $75 million to Ripple. The SEC has not yet made an announcement, and any deal would have to be approved by the court.

The SEC’s case against Ripple had progressed a lot further than its charges against other crypto players. That makes it more difficult to simply drop them. Most notably, a judge has already ruled on the case. Former SEC attorney Marc Fagel posted on X that the court ruling against direct institutional sales still stands.

Ripple says the SEC will ask the court to remove its injunction. But it may not be so straightforward. The injunction says Ripple needs to follow the law. So unless the judge changes her ruling, which Fagel says is unlikely, lifting the injunction would still leave the same types of direct institutional sales in legal limbo.

It’s a bit like two kids asking parents to intervene in a fight over a cookie they took from the cupboard. The parents say they shouldn’t have had the cookie in the first place. The kids make up and agree to play nicely. But there’s no guarantee the parents will give them back the contraband cookies.