The lawsuit against Ripple was adjourned a few days ago requesting the application of SEC security token guidelines to XRP.
To be precise, the class action request was adjourned to the Oakland division of the Northern California District Court.
This time the plaintiffs cite the SEC framework which provides guidelines on crypto tokens, according to which XRP should not be considered as a simple utility token, but as a real security, that is, more or less as a stock.
In addition, there is also mention of the California State Advertising Act, supporting the claim that investors were misled by Ripple’s advertising.
This case has been going on for a year already and for now, has not yet received the status of class action, but it is possible that it will continue for a long time, not least because of the fact that the XRP sales campaign by Ripple Labs does not appear to hint at stopping.
A year ago, when bitcoin was worth just over $6,000, XRP was trading at almost $0.3, while today bitcoin is worth over $10,000 and XRP has remained roughly below $0.3.
On this occasion, however, the lawsuit, filed on August 5th, forces Ripple to answer: the company has until September 19th to give its version of the facts.
The plaintiffs argue that XRP should be considered as a security token, like a stock, and therefore should follow the relevant rules, which also regulate, for example, the way in which the company can sell the tokens on the market.
If, however, XRP continues to be considered a mere utility token, then the company can continue to dispose of it freely, selling it on the market as many times as it wants.
The fact is that the lawsuit directly cites the SEC token framework, suggesting that, according to those guidelines, XRP should be considered a security token.
Although the SEC framework is technically non-binding, the court could seriously consider its guidelines in an attempt to arrive at a clear and definitive definition of XRP.