At this point in time, lawsuits surrounding crypto and blockchain are aplenty. Today, we share updates from a trio of these ongoing cases.
Ripple vs. YouTube
YouTube has, unfortunately, become a haven for scams, which prey on crypto enthusiasts. One of the more commonly seen examples of this involves XRP giveaways and investments. This has not gone unnoticed by Ripple, however.
Citing irreparable damage, both, past and on-going, Ripple has filed a lawsuit against YouTube. Found HERE, court documents shed light on a scathing overview of ‘wilful inaction’ by YouTube.
Beyond highlighting this ‘wilful inaction’, the suit goes as far as stating that YouTube has actually helped these bad actors through the awardance of certain ‘badges’ on the platform. Furthermore, they allege that YouTube has profited from these scams through targeted ad placements, promoting scams.
“The Scam has also irreparably harmed Ripple’s brand and Mr. Garlinghouse’s reputation. By infringing on Ripple’s protected trademarks and misappropriating Mr. Garlinghouse’s image and likeness, the Scam fosters the false belief that Ripple and Mr. Garlinghouse are somehow associated with or to blame for the Scam (they are not), and introduces profound uncertainty and confusion into the broader digital asset market.”
This new suit will surely add to the complexity of Ripple’s on-going legal battles with the SEC. The company has stood firm on their stance, to this day, that XRP is not a security. We recently took a look at developments pertaining to this case, as well.
OneCoin vs. SEC
As one of the largest scams in recent memory, OneCoin has been the target of an ongoing lawsuit. Unfortunately, however, the proceedings recently experienced a hiccup, as the District Judge presiding over the case was forced to issue orders for monthly updates by the plaintiff. These, basically, indicated that if not filed by a certain date, the plaintiffs ran the risk of seeing the case discontinued.
This recent hiccup has now prompted a plea from the law firm representing the plaintiffs in this case. The following is an excerpt from this plea, requesting for the recently filed ‘stay’ , to be lifted.
“…Plaintiffs have invested a significant amount of time and effort into this Action, completed service on all remaining defendants at this time, and are prepared to proceed with the litigation expeditiously. Provided that the Court allows Plaintiffs to proceed with this matter, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the stay currently in place in this Action be lifted…”
Blockvest vs. SEC
A lawsuit surrounding Blockvest, and their actions surrounding a past ICO, has been on-going for well over a year now.
While the company was initially thought to have scored a big win, in proving that their token was not a security, other discrepancies in their actions have surfaced. Notably, the SEC maintains that Blockvest cofounders committed several acts of forgery, and fraud. Furthermore, as their past defenses were based upon this, and should result in a ‘terminating sanction’, due to wilfully committing perjury.
As of April 20, 2020, the SEC have gotten their wish, as the courts granted the request for a termination sanction. In the process, the courts did not bite their tongue when describing the defendant’s actions.
“The Court is mindful that terminating sanctions are a hash remedy, however, Defendants’ egregious misconduct and willful deception concerning key issues in this litigation justifies the imposition of terminating sanctions requested by Plaintiff.”