An improvement to the class-action lawsuit against Ripple, filed March 25, included added claims of false advertising and unfair competition, “under the alternate concept that XRP isn’t a security.”
The disappointed investors’ sixth and seventh claims for relief would appear to be an immediate boundary in the event the judge rules against the original suit suggesting that XRP was illegally sold as an unregistered security.
Hedging their bets
These additional claims for relief state that they are being attracted”under the alternative theory that XRP isn’t a security.”
The claims work as a hedge to the possibility of the judge’s judgment that this is the case.
As Cointelegraph formerly reported, the amended filing also included the additional argument that Ripple CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, was touting XRP to potential investors while silently liquidating his holdings.
Are you covering old grounds?
The long-running lawsuit was initially filed back in November 2018, but after much legal wrangling, it was given the go-ahead to proceed in February this year finally.
Ripple’s motion for the case to be disregarded was only partially granted by the District Court judge, allowing the declaration that the XRP token was sold as unregistered security to move forward.
On the other hand, the claims that the judge did see fit to throw included those of false advertisements, and violation of California state regulation. The amended claims of false advertising and infringement of state law are virtually identical, other than relying on the theory that XRP isn’t a security.