The tweet was deleted by the author.
But we saved everything 🙂.
A federal court in Manhattan has put an end to a class-action lawsuit against Uniswap Labs and its founder Hayden Adams. Plaintiffs argued that the platform should be held liable for fraudulent tokens and pump-and-dump schemes traded through the protocol.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the case with prejudice, preventing it from being filed again, Cointelegraph reported.
The ruling states that plaintiffs failed to prove Uniswap “knew about the fraud and provided substantial assistance in its commission.” The court emphasized that “simply creating an environment in which fraud can occur is not equivalent to actively facilitating that fraud.”
Adams called the decision a “good and sensible outcome,” adding: “If you write open-source smart contract code and that code is used by scammers, the scammers are responsible, not the open-source developers.”
The court also noted: “Such an argument fails for the same reasons that a bank does not substantially assist a money launderer… merely providing a platform on which fraud occurs is not the same as substantially assisting that fraud.”
The case lasted nearly four years. Following the ruling, UNI rose from $3.75 to $4.03.
The increase reflects reduced legal uncertainty surrounding one of the largest DeFi protocols. The threat of a negative precedent that could have affected decentralized trading platforms has effectively been removed.
The court drew a clear line: responsibility lies with the creators and promoters of fraudulent tokens, not with the developers of the open protocol. This approach may serve as a reference point in other cases involving the limits of liability for infrastructure projects.
At the same time, the crypto market is gradually moving into a more formalized legal environment. In the European Union, the MiCA regulation is coming into force, introducing unified requirements for token issuers and crypto service providers, including disclosure standards and stablecoin reserve rules.
In the United States, lawmakers continue to debate digital asset market structure and stablecoin regulation. Against this backdrop, the Uniswap ruling reinforces a basic principle: code and infrastructure are not inherently equal to fraud.
Legal certainty is increasing, but compliance and transparency requirements are becoming stricter — especially for projects working with retail investors. Regulators are increasingly demanding clearer disclosures on risks, token structures and promotion mechanics, narrowing the space for gray-area practices.
Read also: Uniswap founder warns of fake ads after user loses entire crypto wallet