Community Trust ScoreVerified
Judge Colleen McMahon tossed claims against Solana Labs and the Solana Foundation — along with their executives — from the Pump Fun lawsuit. The ruling came down as part of a broader set of decisions on motions to dismiss filed in the case brought by Burwick Law.
The dismissal is a clean win for Solana Labs. But the lawsuit isn’t going away. Racketeering allegations — wire fraud, illegal gambling, unlicensed money transmission — survived against Pump Fun’s parent company, Baton Corporation, and its three named executives: Noah Bernhard Hugo Tweedale, Alon Cohen, and Dylan Kerler. Those claims were brought by plaintiffs Carnahan and Okafor. A separate set of RICO claims from plaintiff Aguilar, though, didn’t make it through. McMahon dismissed those.
So the picture is messy. Some claims live, some die, and the parties left holding the bag are Baton Corp and its leadership.
Memecoins FRED and GRIFFAIN Don’t Count as Securities
McMahon also knocked out the Securities Act allegations against Pump Fun. The argument was that the platform offered unregistered securities — but the judge didn’t buy it, at least not for the memecoins at the center of the case. FRED and GRIFFAIN, she ruled, don’t form a “common enterprise” under the Howey Test. No common enterprise, no securities classification. That’s basically the legal floor here.
Ariel Givner, founder of a crypto law firm, pushed back a bit on the broader takeaway. Not all memecoins get that pass, she said — it’s specific to situations where no shared profit goal exists between the token issuer and investors. Worth keeping in mind. The ruling doesn’t create a blanket shield for the memecoin space.
Unjust enrichment claims got tossed too.
25 Unnamed KOLs Still a Problem for Burwick Law
Here’s where things get complicated for Burwick Law. The firm has 25 unnamed key opinion leaders — KOLs — in the suit, accused of promoting Pump Fun tokens while hiding both their compensation and their existing stakes in those tokens. Problem is, Burwick Law hasn’t managed to serve them. The lawsuit kicked off in January 2025, and these individuals still haven’t been properly identified and served.
McMahon pressed Burwick Law on that. Hard. The firm now has until September 10 to explain why those claims shouldn’t be dismissed outright for failure to identify and serve the defendants. That’s a tight window, and probably not a comfortable position to be in.
Among the named defendants is a crypto influencer who goes by “Scooter.” He’s threatened to counter-sue Burwick Law for defamation. No details yet on whether that actually moves forward — unclear — but it’s the kind of escalation that makes already messy litigation messier.
The original lawsuit pulled in Solana Labs and Jito Labs together. The theory was that both entities worked to sidestep US securities laws and pull capital out of the US market without giving investors the protections or disclosures they’d normally be entitled to. Serious stuff. But Burwick Law voluntarily dropped Jito Labs from the case months after filing, long before McMahon ruled on anything. Now Solana Labs is out too, by court order.
That’s a significant narrowing of the defendant list. What started as a wide-net lawsuit targeting major infrastructure players in the Solana ecosystem has pulled back considerably. Baton Corporation and its executives are now the main targets left standing.
The $1.5 billion fraud figure that was floated when Jito Labs was still in the case hasn’t disappeared from the conversation entirely, but the legal strategy around it has clearly shifted. Burwick Law is recalibrating. Whether that’s by choice or by necessity — probably both — is hard to say from the outside.
The KOL problem is real, though. If those 25 individuals can’t be identified and served, that chunk of the case could collapse before it even gets going. Courts don’t wait forever, and McMahon’s September 10 deadline makes that plain.
Crypto influencer liability in token promotion cases is still pretty murky legal territory across the board. Regulators and plaintiffs’ attorneys have been circling it for a while, but cases like this one are where the actual lines get drawn — or don’t. Burwick Law’s ability to keep those KOL claims alive may say a lot about how far courts are willing to go in holding promoters accountable for undisclosed paid endorsements.
For now, Solana Labs walks away clean. Baton Corp does not.
Hub: Solana price, news, and analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
Why were Solana Labs and Solana Foundation dismissed from the Pump Fun lawsuit?
Judge Colleen McMahon granted motions to dismiss the claims against Solana Labs and the Solana Foundation, along with their executives, removing them from the case entirely.
What RICO claims survived the court’s rulings?
Racketeering allegations including wire fraud, illegal gambling, and unlicensed money transmission against Baton Corporation and its executives Noah Bernhard Hugo Tweedale, Alon Cohen, and Dylan Kerler were upheld, based on claims brought by plaintiffs Carnahan and Okafor.
Why does Burwick Law have until September 10 to respond to the court?
The court demanded that Burwick Law explain its failure to identify and serve 25 unnamed KOL defendants since the lawsuit began in January 2025, or face dismissal of those claims.
Why It Matters
The dismissal of claims against Solana Labs and its executives reinforces the company's legal standing, potentially bolstering investor confidence in the Solana ecosystem amid ongoing regulatory scrutiny within the cryptocurrency space. However, the survival of RICO claims against Baton Corp highlights the continuing risks and challenges facing projects associated with alleged fraudulent activities, which could impact market perceptions and the operational landscape for similar ventures in the sector.
