SEC v. Coinbase

Allegations & issues

The SEC alleged unregistered exchange, broker and clearing-agency activity, and an unregistered staking offering. These were registration allegations, not fraud charges. [1]

Key rulings & findings

In March 2024, some claims survived the pleadings stage; the Wallet claim did not. That stage tested pleading sufficiency, not liability after trial. There was no final merits determination before dismissal. [2; 4, entry 105]

Admissions

The dismissal stipulation contains no admission of wrongdoing by Coinbase. [2]

Disposition

The SEC announced its stipulation on 27 February 2025; the court docket records dismissal and closure on 28 February. Dismissal covers the conduct alleged through the stipulation date. [2–4]

Penalties, damages & redress

No monetary penalty imposed by this dismissal; each side bears its own costs and fees. [2, §1]

Restrictions & obligations

Coinbase withdrew its interlocutory appeal request and waived specified litigation-related claims and fee recovery. The dismissal is not a general exemption from securities law. [2, §§2–3]

Regulatory context

In February 2025, Commissioner Hester Peirce described the Coinbase action as part of “regulation-by-enforcement”. Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw disagreed with the dismissal, arguing that existing securities law should continue to be enforced. These are attributed policy views, not judicial findings. [5–6]

The activities challenged by the SEC

The SEC said Coinbase combined exchange, brokerage and clearing functions without the corresponding registrations. Its complaint also challenged the staking-as-a-service programme, through which customer assets were pooled for blockchain validation and customers received rewards. These were the agency’s allegations, rather than findings after a trial. [1]

The distinction between the platform and Wallet claims matters. The March 2024 ruling did not reject the entire action: several claims passed the pleadings threshold. The later dismissal ended those remaining claims without a trial determining liability. [4, entry 105; 2]

Why the case ended

The SEC expressly tied its decision to a change in its regulatory approach to crypto. It said dismissal was not based on an assessment of the merits. That explanation differs from a judicial finding that the underlying allegations were unfounded. [3]

The stipulation covered the conduct alleged in the complaint through its filing date. It also required withdrawal of Coinbase’s interlocutory appeal request, provided for no costs or fees to either party, and included releases of specified litigation-related claims and fee recovery. Those terms explain the resolution without treating it as a general regulatory exemption. [2, §§1–3]

THE UNDERLYING RECORD

Primary sources

Read the full documents for their precise wording and context. Regulator summaries are identified separately from court records.