“SEC Has Gone Too Far,” Claims Ripple. Will the lawsuit See Any End In April?

In the ongoing case between Ripple vs SEC, there is a new turn as the Ripple executive Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen have turned down the allegations made by SEC and also appealed to the court to dissolve the case.

This was a reply to reports that were altered by SEC, where the two went ahead to say that the two primary laws that define security within the legal system did not include digital assets.

SEC Is Trying To Seek Its Own Control

Ripple’s reply to SEC’s allegations has also refused to grant any relief to SEC in concern with the judgment or any other form of support. Furthermore, Garlinghouse and Larsen have also requested the court to dismiss the case and give the judgment in favor of the accused.

The Garlinghouse response claims that the SEC is seeking legal action after the fact and noted that the commission has failed to take hold of this case by thoughtful guidance and rulemaking.

Also Read : What is Stopping Ripple’s XRP Price from Smashing $1, How Long Will it Consolidate Below $0.8?

What The Defendants Are Claiming :

The defendants here claim that the SEC is trying to convey essential regulatory warnings to the market. Garlinghouse states that the SEC is trying to establish an entirely new standard on how digital assets will be managed in the country and also says that the commission is going way too far.

By these responses, the defendants are trying to indicate how the SEC is trying to build its own rules and regulations, especially in an industry that is still under development without offering any clear guidance to the market. The reply also asserted that SEC is just trying to gain legal victory with the support of regulations that don’t have a clear stance.

A Brief Background

The Ripple vs SEC case all started when the Securities Commission filed a case against Ripple Labs that XRP is a security and not a token. However, the Ripple labs have raised and cleared the matter that XRP is a token and not security. The defendants have also added that neither of them has ever allegedly offered any sales or distribution of XRP that are investment contracts.