Crypto Cases Refuse to Centralize as MDL Bid Is Denied
Court Panel Denies Motto Bid to Centralize Crypto Cases
Three separate crypto lawsuits will stay in three separate courts. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, led by Judge Sarah S. Vance, rejected Anthony Motto’s request to fold the Greene case and two others into one Northern District of Illinois docket. The move keeps the litigation on separate tracks and signals that early-stage crypto disputes may not yet meet the “common questions” threshold for consolidation.
Motto filed the motion after his own case landed in Chicago, hoping to drag companion actions from Los Angeles and Philadelphia into the same courtroom. Defendants in each matter pushed back, arguing the claims, tokens, and conduct differed enough to make a single proceeding unwieldy. The panel agreed, finding insufficient overlap to justify the cost and coordination of an MDL. No new facts emerged at argument to change that view.
The ruling leaves plaintiffs litigating in three venues, each with its own judge, schedule, and procedural quirks. Defense teams avoid the risk of one unfavorable precedent binding multiple cases, while plaintiffs keep more shots on goal but face higher aggregate costs. For the crypto industry, the decision underscores that scattered litigation remains the default until common factual cores become clearer or regulators step in with uniform rules.
In plain terms, the court said these crypto fights are not similar enough, yet, to travel as a single package. That preserves the patchwork of standards plaintiffs and exchanges must navigate, and it keeps pressure on Congress or the SEC to supply the clarity that courts are reluctant to manufacture through procedural shortcuts.
Market participants read the order as a small win for decentralization: no single district yet serves as a nationwide command center for token disputes, so jurisdictional arbitrage and forum-shopping stay alive. Exchanges and DeFi protocols gain breathing room to tailor defenses locally, but they also absorb the expense of monitoring three dockets instead of one. Traders see continued legal fog rather than the bright line they crave on whether specific tokens are commodities, securities, or something else.
Expect plaintiffs to keep filing wherever the courthouse doors swing easiest until a critical mass of cases—or a regulatory hammer—finally forces true centralization.
