Panel Rejects Centralization of Crypto Trading Lawsuits
Court Rejects Bid to Centralize Crypto Trading Lawsuits
A federal judicial panel has denied plaintiff Anthony Motto’s request to consolidate three separate cryptocurrency trading lawsuits into a single proceeding in Chicago. The decision keeps the cases scattered across Illinois, California, and Pennsylvania, preserving different legal tracks and different judges for each dispute.
Motto filed the motion after his own case, Greene v. various crypto platforms, landed in the Northern District of Illinois. He argued that three similar suits—each accusing exchanges and token issuers of selling unregistered securities—should travel together to avoid conflicting rulings and duplicative discovery. The other two matters sit in the Central District of California and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the panel saw no overwhelming reason to force them into one courtroom.
Judges on the Panel heard arguments that common questions about whether certain tokens qualify as securities justified centralization. Defense counsel pushed back, noting that each case involves distinct platforms, token sets, and state-law claims that would still require individualized proof even if transferred. The Panel agreed, ruling that the factual differences outweighed any efficiency gains and that existing coordination among counsel could handle overlapping issues without formal consolidation.
The ruling leaves each district free to develop its own record on token classification and exchange liability. Plaintiffs gain the chance to test arguments in multiple forums, while defendants avoid the risk of a single adverse precedent binding all three matters at once. Regulators and market participants will watch how these parallel tracks shape the boundaries of SEC authority over DeFi protocols and stablecoin-like instruments.
Traders should expect continued legal fragmentation rather than a unified national standard, raising both compliance costs for platforms and opportunities for plaintiffs to shop for favorable venues. Exchanges and DeFi projects gain breathing room but must still budget for multi-district litigation risk. The decision underscores that, for now, crypto cases will be fought piece by piece instead of under one roof.
Decentralization in the courtroom may slow regulatory clarity but keeps multiple pressure points alive for both enforcement agencies and creative plaintiffs.
