- Montana and seven other states challenge the SEC’s authority to regulate crypto as securities.
- They argue the SEC’s ecosystem theory oversteps its bounds and threatens existing state consumer protection laws.
- Legal experts see this as part of a growing global pushback against the SEC’s overreach.
Montana, a state in the U.S., has stepped into the legal fray surrounding the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) enforcement case against Kraken. Paul Grewal, Chief Legal Officer of Coinbase, recently called attention to the development in a recent post on X.
Given that Montana’s action has received endorsements from seven other states, Grewal took to X to emphasize its significance.
The crux of the issue lies in the SEC’s purported “ecosystem” theory, which these U.S. states argue is not only unlawful but poses a significant risk to their citizens. Their main worry is that the SEC’s attempt to regulate crypto assets as securities might override consumer protection and state laws.
According to Grewal, the states believe the SEC is going beyond its role, possibly disregarding state laws more suitable for dealing with the specific risks of non-security products. They argue that while federal securities laws serve a purpose, they are not designed to function as broad consumer protection statutes covering all asset purchases.
Moreover, the states stress that the term “investment contract” under the Securities and Exchange Act is meant to describe unconventional instruments with key similarities to debt or equity securities. They argue that this definition should not be expanded beyond its original purpose.
Furthermore, Grewal pointed out that many states have set up regulatory systems treating crypto assets like money transmitters. These systems involve registration, minimum net worth standards, security protocols, and regulatory supervision. He stressed that these state-level frameworks are now at risk of being overridden by federal regulations.
In reply, legal expert Bill Morgan commented that global sentiment opposes the SEC’s expansive actions in crypto, except for a minority whose motives, he suggests, may not prioritize consumer protection.
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
