Crypto in Court: A Busy Week for Judges
Blockchain isn’t just about prices and wallets — it’s increasingly becoming a matter for the courtroom. This week, two legal cases in the United States highlighted persistent gray areas between traditional financial law and the crypto universe. Two distinct stories, but they share a common thread: the thorny question of liability in an ecosystem still searching for a clear legal framework.
Caitlyn Jenner’s Memecoin: Not a Security, Rules the Judge
First case, rather surprising: an American judge has ruled that the memecoin JENNER, launched by media personality Caitlyn Jenner, is not a security in the traditional financial sense. This ruling comes in the context of a class action lawsuit filed by investors who lost money on this token.
Let’s recall the context: in 2024, the trend of celebrity-backed memecoins had reached fever pitch. Public figures — actors, athletes, influencers — were launching their own tokens in a matter of hours, attracting millions of dollars before prices crashed just as quickly as they had climbed. The plaintiffs argued that the JENNER token met the criteria of a regulated financial instrument, which would have implied legal obligations on the part of its promoters.
But the judge didn’t follow that reasoning. To qualify an asset as a security in the United States, the famous Howey Test is generally applied, stemming from 1946 case law: it must involve an investment in a common enterprise, with expectations of profit generated primarily by the efforts of a third party. The court concluded that the JENNER memecoin didn’t sufficiently meet these criteria.
This decision doesn’t close the debate, however. It’s part of a series of unresolved questions about the legal nature of memecoins — assets that, for many, have no real utility, no underlying project, and no development team in the traditional sense. Should they be regulated? How? The answer remains unclear, and each court decision helps build, brick by brick, a still-unfinished puzzle.
Circle Under Fire: 285 Million Reasons to Explain Itself
On the other side of the legal spectrum, Circle — the issuer of the USDC stablecoin — finds itself in the dock. A class action lawsuit has been filed against the company in connection with the hack of Drift Protocol, a decentralized trading platform, for the massive sum of 285 million dollars.
The plaintiffs’ central argument is particularly interesting: according to the lawyers behind the case, Circle had an eight-hour window during which it would have been possible to freeze the stolen USDC funds, preventing hackers from moving them and potentially laundering them. This window was allegedly not used.
This is where it becomes a real substantive debate. USDC is a so-called centralized stablecoin: unlike Bitcoin, for example, Circle technically has the ability to block or freeze addresses holding USDC. This is actually one of the recurring criticisms from decentralization advocates regarding this type of asset. But does this capacity imply a legal obligation to act in case of a hack?
That’s precisely what the plaintiffs are trying to argue. If a stablecoin issuer can intervene and doesn’t, can it be held responsible for losses suffered? The answer to this question could have substantial consequences, not only for Circle, but for the entire centralized stablecoin sector.
Circle, for its part, has not yet publicly commented on these accusations at the time of writing.
Perspective: The Legal Maturation of a Sector Under Construction
These two cases, as different as they are, illustrate the same reality: crypto is undergoing a painful but inevitable phase of legal maturation. For years, the industry evolved in a regulatory no man’s land that allowed great freedom of action — but also great impunity when things went wrong.
Today, courts are increasingly called upon to settle questions that neither lawmakers nor regulators have yet had the time (or will) to codify clearly. Who is responsible when a memecoin collapses? Should a stablecoin issuer play the role of financial watchdog? How far does the obligation to act extend for a centralized entity in an ecosystem that claims to be decentralized?
Answers will arrive gradually, case by case, judgment by judgment. And while this process may seem slow and frustrating, it may be the only way to produce solid case law. In the meantime, one thing is certain: having a good lawyer specialized in crypto has become, in 2026, almost as essential as a hardware wallet.
