Key Takeaways
- • An Ontario court certified a class action against Galaxy Digital Holdings Ltd., marking a significant development in cryptocurrency litigation and establishing precedent for investor claims in the sector.
- • U.S. courts in 2025 issued landmark decisions distinguishing liability between centralized and decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges under federal securities laws, with centralized exchanges facing plausible claims as statutory sellers of unregistered securities.
- • The Second Circuit and Southern District of New York (SDNY) rulings in early 2025 created a bifurcated discovery framework, front-loading the determination of whether an exchange operates as a "centralized" intermediary before proceeding to merits discovery.
- • Multiple district courts granted partial class certification on unregistered securities sales claims in cryptocurrency cases throughout 2025, establishing that common proof mechanisms—particularly reliance—can support class-wide relief.
- • The proliferation of crypto class certifications and settlements in 2025 signals sustained litigation momentum in the sector, with dozens of new cases filed alongside multimillion-dollar settlements against token issuers, promoters, and exchange operators.
Summary
The cryptocurrency litigation landscape experienced substantial development in 2025, with courts issuing critical class certification decisions that will shape investor recovery avenues and issuer liability standards. An Ontario court's certification of a class action against Galaxy Digital Holdings Ltd. represents a watershed moment for cross-border cryptocurrency litigation, establishing that proposed classes can proceed on common theories of harm against major digital asset firms.
The most consequential 2025 rulings emerged from federal courts in the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York, which established a two-tiered analytical framework for cryptocurrency exchange liability. In decisions including *Risley v. Universal Navigation* (Feb. 26, 2025) and *Underwood v. Coinbase Global* (Feb. 7, 2025), courts held that an exchange operator's status as either "centralized" or "decentralized" determines initial liability exposure under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act. Centralized exchanges—those that intermediary and transact between buyers and sellers—face plausible allegations of acting as statutory sellers, whereas decentralized exchanges operating through automated smart contracts do not. This distinction has material consequences for the scope of discoverable conduct and potential liability exposure.
The SDNY subsequently ordered bifurcated discovery and front-loaded resolution of the centralization question, providing guidance on document categories relevant to determining whether an exchange functioned as a statutory seller. This procedural approach—established in *Underwood v. Coinbase Global* (July 17, 2025)—prioritizes early resolution of the threshold legal issue before permitting broader merits discovery, potentially streamlining litigation timelines and reducing discovery costs for both parties.
Multiple district courts, including the District of Connecticut, granted partial class certification on unregistered securities sales claims, holding that plaintiffs could establish reliance through common proof mechanisms rather than individual inquiry. Concurrent with these certifications, 2025 witnessed the filing of dozens of new cryptocurrency class actions targeting token issuers, promoters, and ecosystem operators, alongside several multimillion-dollar settlements. This consolidation of favorable precedent and active filing trends indicates sustained investor appetite for class-based recovery mechanisms and judicial receptiveness to cryptocurrency-specific legal theories.
The most consequential 2025 rulings emerged from federal courts in the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York, which established a two-tiered analytical framework for cryptocurrency exchange liability. In decisions including *Risley v. Universal Navigation* (Feb. 26, 2025) and *Underwood v. Coinbase Global* (Feb. 7, 2025), courts held that an exchange operator's status as either "centralized" or "decentralized" determines initial liability exposure under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act. Centralized exchanges—those that intermediary and transact between buyers and sellers—face plausible allegations of acting as statutory sellers, whereas decentralized exchanges operating through automated smart contracts do not. This distinction has material consequences for the scope of discoverable conduct and potential liability exposure.
The SDNY subsequently ordered bifurcated discovery and front-loaded resolution of the centralization question, providing guidance on document categories relevant to determining whether an exchange functioned as a statutory seller. This procedural approach—established in *Underwood v. Coinbase Global* (July 17, 2025)—prioritizes early resolution of the threshold legal issue before permitting broader merits discovery, potentially streamlining litigation timelines and reducing discovery costs for both parties.
Multiple district courts, including the District of Connecticut, granted partial class certification on unregistered securities sales claims, holding that plaintiffs could establish reliance through common proof mechanisms rather than individual inquiry. Concurrent with these certifications, 2025 witnessed the filing of dozens of new cryptocurrency class actions targeting token issuers, promoters, and ecosystem operators, alongside several multimillion-dollar settlements. This consolidation of favorable precedent and active filing trends indicates sustained investor appetite for class-based recovery mechanisms and judicial receptiveness to cryptocurrency-specific legal theories.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.