Judge Vance’s Panel Rejects Crypto Class Action Consolidation
A three-judge federal panel just denied a bid to merge three separate lawsuits against crypto platforms into one Illinois mega-case. The decision leaves each suit to run on its own track, raising the stakes for every exchange and DeFi protocol named in the filings.
Plaintiff Anthony Motto asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to bundle his Northern District of Illinois suit with two others in California and Pennsylvania, arguing that common questions about unregistered securities and misleading token marketing justified a single courtroom. The defendants—unnamed in the order but widely understood to include major exchanges and token issuers—fought the move, claiming divergent facts and legal theories made consolidation inefficient. Judges Sarah Vance, acting as Chair, and her colleagues agreed, ruling that the differences in products, disclosures, and investor bases outweighed any efficiencies.
Without consolidation, each district keeps its own discovery schedule, motion practice, and settlement pressure. Plaintiffs now face three separate judges, three juries, and three possible verdicts instead of one coordinated front. For the defense bar, the ruling keeps litigation costs fragmented but also prevents a single adverse finding from rippling across the entire industry. Regulators will watch closely: an early plaintiffs’ win in any of the three districts could embolden the SEC or CFTC to treat similar tokens as securities nationwide, while a defense victory might slow enforcement momentum.
The Panel’s refusal to centralize keeps crypto litigation splintered, meaning enforcement risk stays local and unpredictable rather than uniform and sweeping.