Is the SEC vs Ripple case over, and who won?

The full answer

What did the SEC sue Ripple for?

The SEC filed its civil case against Ripple Labs, Bradley Garlinghouse and Christian A. Larsen in the Southern District of New York on December 22, 2020 [2]. PYMNTS reported that the SEC alleged Ripple had conducted a $1.3 billion unregistered securities offering [1]. The background to the claims is set out in What was the SEC vs Ripple lawsuit about?.

Who won, and what did each side get?

In 2023 the district judge ruled that Ripple’s sales of XRP on public exchanges did not meet the legal definition of a security, while its sales to institutional investors should have complied with securities laws, as PYMNTS summarised the ruling on August 7, 2025 [1]. The reasons for that split are covered in Why were XRP sales to institutions treated differently?.

The final judgment of August 7, 2024 imposed a $125,035,150 civil penalty and an injunction against Ripple, according to the SEC’s release of May 8, 2025 [2]. PYMNTS reported that the penalty was below the $2 billion the SEC had sought [1]. Ripple wrote on September 15, 2026 that it spent more than $150 million fighting for legal clarity in court [6].

On those terms, the SEC prevailed on institutional sales, the penalty and the injunction, and Ripple prevailed on exchange sales and on a penalty far below what the SEC asked for. This follows from the ruling and judgment as reported in [1] and [2]. The penalty itself is covered in How much did Ripple have to pay the SEC?.

On July 13, 2023 Judge Analisa Torres held that those Institutional Sales were “the unregistered offer and sale of investment contracts in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act.”[13] On August 7, 2024 she entered a final judgment with a permanent injunction and a $125,035,150 civil penalty.[14]

The court later called the penalty “substantially reduced,”[14] as set out on how much Ripple had to pay the SEC.

The court said it “does not address whether secondary market sales of XRP” are investment contracts, “because that question is not properly before the Court.”[13] So the case did not rule on trades between ordinary holders.

How did the case end?

Ripple and the SEC both appealed the decision [1], and the appeals were pending in the Second Circuit [2]. On May 8, 2025 the SEC filed a settlement agreement. Under it, the parties would ask the district court to dissolve the injunction and release the escrow holding the $125,035,150 penalty, with $50 million paid to the SEC in full satisfaction and the remainder to Ripple [2]. They would then move to dismiss their appeals [2].

Ripple’s Q1 2025 XRP Markets Report, dated May 5, 2025, said the SEC had officially withdrawn its appeal, closing the chapter on the legal saga [3]. The district judge then rejected the joint motion to approve the settlement, PYMNTS reported [1].

Following a Commission vote, the SEC and Ripple filed a joint stipulation directly with the Second Circuit to dismiss their appeals. Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty called it “The end” in a post that PYMNTS reported on August 7, 2025 [1]. PYMNTS reported that the SEC’s litigation release said the final judgment’s $125 million fine and its injunction remain in effect after the dismissal of the cross-appeals [1].

Ripple’s May 2025 description of the case as closed came before the judge rejected the settlement, and the $50 million figure never took effect. This follows from [3] and the SEC statement reported in [1].

Why did both sides drop their appeals rather than let the Second Circuit rule?

The SEC said on May 8, 2025 that its decision to seek a resolution rested on its judgment that this would help its efforts to reform and renew its regulatory approach to the crypto industry, not on any assessment of the merits [2]. It also said the decision does not necessarily reflect its position on any other case [2]. Whether the ruling reaches other tokens or courts is covered in Does the Ripple ruling bind other courts or settle the status of other tokens?.

When the judge rejected the joint motion, PYMNTS reported, she said Ripple and the SEC could choose to withdraw their appeals or to appeal the injunction [1]. They filed to dismiss their appeals [1].

Dropping the appeals left the 2023 ruling in place without a Second Circuit review that could have changed it in either direction. Ripple kept the finding on exchange sales. The SEC closed a case it had said it wanted to resolve for policy reasons. The cost to Ripple was the full penalty and the injunction instead of the proposed $50 million settlement. This follows from [1] and [2]. Neither side has publicly given a reason for not appealing the injunction.

What does the court’s injunction still stop Ripple doing, and does it limit Ripple’s XRP sales?

In the litigation release that PYMNTS reported on August 7, 2025, the SEC described the injunction as prohibiting Ripple from violating the registration provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, and said it remains in effect [1]. PYMNTS called it a permanent injunction [1]. The May 2025 settlement had asked the court to dissolve it [2], and the judge rejected that motion [1].

SEC Release 33-11412, effective March 23, 2026, says a crypto asset that is not itself a security can still be offered and sold subject to an investment contract, which is a security [4].

Read with the 2023 ruling and the March 2026 release, the injunction’s practical reach falls on sales made in a way that amounts to an investment contract, such as the direct institutional sales the court reviewed. This follows from [1] and [4]. How the injunction has shaped Ripple’s sales in practice is not known.

The court granted an injunction “consistent with Part I of the Proposed Judgment,” the part that restrains Ripple “from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act.”[17]

Does the end of the case settle whether XRP is a security?

SEC Release 33-11412, dated March 17, 2026 and effective March 23, 2026, lists XRP among examples of digital commodities and says digital commodities are not themselves securities [4]. Ripple wrote on September 15, 2026 that in 2023 it secured a landmark victory establishing that XRP is not a security, and that the Senate vote on the CLARITY Act did not change the established legal clarity for XRP [6]. The same post said the CLARITY Act failed to advance in the Senate that day [6]; what that means is covered in What happened to the CLARITY Act, and does it affect XRP?.

The strongest opposing evidence comes from an XRP fund’s own filing. Bitwise’s XRP ETF registration amendment, filed September 18, 2026, says XRP’s status as a security under US federal securities laws has not been definitively resolved [5]. It says the March 2026 release does not have the force and effect of law, is not binding on courts or other regulatory authorities, and may be modified or withdrawn by a future administration [5]. It also says there can be no assurance that the SEC, a court or another regulator will not in the future determine that XRP, or transactions in XRP, involve a security [5].

As PYMNTS summarised it, the 2023 ruling turned on how Ripple sold XRP, not on the token in every setting. Ripple’s description of it as establishing that XRP is not a security is therefore broader than that summary. Ripple’s description of it as establishing that XRP is not a security is broader than that summary. This follows from [1] and [6]. The fuller answer is in Is XRP a security?. The questions still open are set out in What’s still unresolved now that the lawsuit is over?, and the chance of a policy change in Could a future US government reverse XRP’s regulatory position?.

This page does not assess the case’s effect on XRP’s price; that question is taken up in Does Ripple’s success mean XRP’s price goes up?. Changes for funds, futures and custody since the case are tracked in How much has XRP’s institutional position changed since the SEC case?.