COURT SNUBS ILLINOIS BID TO POOL CRYPTO CASES
Three scattered lawsuits over digital-asset trading platforms just got harder to corral. A federal judicial panel refused to fold the actions into a single courtroom in Chicago, leaving each case to grind forward on its own timetable. The ruling keeps pressure on exchanges and token issuers while preserving the SEC’s ability to press separate enforcement theories in different districts.
The trouble began when plaintiff Anthony Motto asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to gather Greene, now in Chicago’s federal court, with parallel suits running in Los Angeles and Philadelphia. Motto argued that common questions about whether certain tokens count as unregistered securities justified one judge handling all discovery and motions. Opposing parties, including the platforms themselves, countered that the cases involve distinct products, marketing claims, and state-law wrinkles best left with the judges already assigned.
In a short order signed by Chair Sarah S. Vance, the Panel declined to create an MDL. The judges found that, despite some overlap on the “investment contract” question, factual differences and the limited number of actions did not outweigh the inconvenience of uprooting two dockets. No new steering committee or consolidated calendar will emerge; each court keeps full control over its schedule, evidence rules, and potential settlement talks.
The decision means plaintiffs cannot pool resources or force uniform rulings on whether the tokens at issue are securities under the Howey test. Defense teams avoid the heavier lift of nationwide class discovery, yet they still face three separate fronts of attack. Regulators watching the litigation will continue to shop districts they view as sympathetic, while traders and liquidity providers must price in the risk that an adverse finding in any one case could ripple through pricing models.
For markets, the lack of centralization keeps uncertainty alive: exchanges cannot bank on a single precedent to shape compliance programs, DeFi protocols must still hedge against piecemeal enforcement, and stablecoin issuers see no shortcut around proving their tokens are commodities rather than securities. The fragmented approach favors plaintiffs willing to forum-shop and raises legal spend for every defendant.
Decentralized platforms just bought time, but they did not buy clarity—three courts, three sets of eyes, and three chances for the SEC to land a precedent that could redefine how tokens trade tomorrow.