US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw has strongly opposed the agency’s recent settlement with Ripple Labs, arguing that it weakens regulatory oversight and fails to protect investors.
In a May 8 statement, Crenshaw said the agreement undermines the court’s and the SEC’s authority to enforce securities laws. She warned that the deal is part of a broader retreat from effective crypto regulation.
The Commissioner stated:
“The settlement joins a line of dismissals that collectively erode the credibility of our lawyers in court who are being asked to take legal positions today contrary to the ones taken just months ago. And it stands in defiant contravention of the doctrine of regularity of government affairs.”
Over the past months, the financial regulator and Ripple have struck an agreement that resolves the SEC’s case against Ripple and its co-founders Brad Garlinghouse and Christian Larsen.
As part of the agreement, the SEC requested that a district court lift a previous injunction against the company. Ripple will also regain access to over $75 million currently held in escrow.
Crenshaw slams SEC
Crenshaw, however, argued that the terms go too far. She explained that by wiping out the earlier court-imposed penalties, the agreement blocks the SEC from pursuing future enforcement tied to XRP sales.
In her view, this weakens the legal precedent and limits the Commission’s future ability to act on similar cases. She wrote:
“If, however, Ripple decides tomorrow to sell unregistered XRP tokens to institutional investors—in plain defiance of the court’s order—this Commission will do absolutely nothing about it. There will be no enforcement of the law. The hundreds of hours spent by the court in this matter will be rendered meaningless. And the court’s decision will be effectively vacated.”
The Commissioner also noted that this deal reflects a troubling shift within the SEC toward reducing its crypto enforcement agenda.
Crenshaw expressed concern that this direction sends confusing signals to the public and the industry, while asking numerous questions.
She questioned:
“Does the resolution suggest to the market that we agree with the court’s ruling? What is the legal effect of the ruling in place? How can we ensure that investors get the information that they need and to which they are entitled under the law?”
Crenshaw stressed that settlements like this risk sending mixed signals to the market. She warned that such actions leave investors vulnerable and fail to provide the clarity for responsible decision-making.
Ultimately, she concluded that the agreement raises more questions than answers, particularly regarding enforcement consistency and investor protection.
Mentioned in this article
