NY Federal Court Certifies Crypto Class Action

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Justin R. Donoho

On March 6, 2025, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted class certification with modifications in a case involving a stablecoin issuer’s alleged issuance of unbacked or debased stablecoins in furtherance of an alleged scheme to manipulate the market prices for crypto commodities and futures in the litigation captioned In Re Tether & Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation, No. 19 Civ. 9236, 2026 WL 629826 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2026).  The ruling is significant as it shows that while crypto purchasers who file class action complaints alleging violations of the Sherman Act and Commodities Exchange Act may be able to satisfy Rule 23 so long as they offer reliable expert models on class-wide causation and damages and limit their proposed classes to purchasers who used fiat currency or stablecoins to make their purchases on domestic or stateless exchanges, such class actions may also be subject to dismissal based on summary judgment on the question of whether the defendants’ alleged provision of unbacked or debased stablecoins caused an increase in price of crypto commodities and futures. 

Read our full analysis of the class action case on the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog.

Key Crypto Class Action Trends and Rulings in 2025 – An Analysis

Duane Morris special counsel Justin Donoho writes for Law360:

The year 2025 was a busy one for crypto class action litigation.

It saw several significant court rulings that continued to shape the law in this growing area, including important decisions on motions to compel arbitration, dispositive motions and motions for class certification. Several multimillion-dollar settlements were reached.

In addition, dozens of new crypto class action cases were filed, auguring continued growth and development in this area.

Read the full analysis from Law360.

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress