SEC Removes Ripple Lawsuit from Main Website Section: Is XRP Case Coming to an End?

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has quietly removed the Ripple lawsuit reference from its primary website section, igniting fresh speculation about the future of the long-running case. This unexpected move has left the crypto community divided—some see it as a sign of the case winding down, while others suspect a strategic shift in regulatory tactics.

Ripple Lawsuit Disappears: A Sign of Retreat or Just a Website Cleanup?

The SEC’s decision to remove Ripple’s lawsuit from its “Litigation Releases” section raises more questions than answers. The case, which began in December 2020, has been one of the most closely watched legal battles in the crypto space. For nearly four years, Ripple and the SEC have clashed over whether XRP should be classified as a security.

Now, without any official explanation, the reference is gone—while other crypto-related lawsuits, including those against Coinbase and Binance, remain prominently listed. Does this mean the SEC is backing down, or is it merely shifting focus?

One thing is clear: investors and legal experts are paying close attention. XRP’s price has already reacted to past legal developments, surging 400% last year as optimism grew around Ripple’s chances. Could this latest development spark another market shakeup?

Legal Landscape: What’s Still on the Table?

Despite the missing reference, the SEC hasn’t dropped its appeal against Ripple. In late 2024, a U.S. district court ruled that XRP itself is not a security, though certain institutional sales of the token could be considered securities transactions. The ruling was a partial win for Ripple, but the SEC pushed back, filing an appeal that extended the case into 2025.

• The new appeal deadline has been set for April 2025, delaying a final resolution.
• Ripple’s penalty was reduced to $125 million, significantly less than the $1.3 billion initially sought.
• The case remains on the SEC’s website, but under different categories rather than in the main “Litigation Releases” section.

This shift in visibility might be administrative, or it could signal a change in the SEC’s enforcement priorities. With a possible change in political leadership looming, some believe regulatory attitudes toward crypto could shift dramatically.

Ripple and the Broader Crypto Market Reaction

Ripple’s battle with the SEC has had a lasting impact on the cryptocurrency industry. XRP’s price has been closely tied to developments in the case, and any hint of a resolution—positive or negative—can trigger sharp price swings.

Market watchers have already speculated about potential outcomes:

• If the SEC is stepping back, it could be a win for Ripple and set a precedent for how cryptocurrencies are classified in the U.S.
• If this is just a reorganization, it may have no real impact on the case’s final outcome, keeping uncertainty high.
• If a political shift in Washington occurs, crypto regulations could change entirely, potentially altering the SEC’s stance.

For now, Ripple continues to operate with increasing regulatory approvals, securing 33 U.S. money transmitter licenses—a significant step toward compliance.

Political Influence: Could 2025 Bring a Major Shift?

Political changes could play a significant role in how this case unfolds. When former President Donald Trump reentered the political scene in late 2024, crypto markets responded positively, anticipating a friendlier regulatory environment under a potential second Trump administration. XRP’s massive price spike last year wasn’t just about Ripple’s legal victories—it was also about shifting sentiment in Washington.

With the next presidential election approaching, the SEC’s stance on crypto could change dramatically depending on who is in charge. Historically, Republican administrations have been seen as more open to digital assets, while the current SEC leadership has taken an aggressive stance against the industry.

Could the SEC’s decision to remove the Ripple case from its main litigation section be a sign of a broader regulatory shift? Some believe it’s possible, especially if a leadership change occurs at the agency.