XRP Influencer Lawsuit Dismissed Under Washington Speech Protection Rules

• XRP defamation lawsuit claims were dismissed without prejudice under Washington’s public-expression law.
• Claver may amend his complaint by September 23, so the dispute could continue.
• Rector may recover reasonable fees and litigation costs linked to his successful motion.

The XRP defamation lawsuit changed course when a Washington federal judge dismissed Jake Claver’s existing claims against Zach Rector. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson granted Rector’s motion on September 2. The ruling addressed videos about Claver and his businesses, which Claver alleged caused financial and reputational harm.

Rector announced the result on X, saying the court found “no actionable false statement” in his videos. He also said the court allowed recovery of legal fees. Court reporting confirms the dismissal, although Claver may amend his case.

XRP Defamation Lawsuit Meets State Speech Law

Claver, Digital Ascension Group, and Digital Wealth Partners filed the action in January. The complaint named Rector and Entrepreneur Exposed LLC. It sought $30 million, punitive damages, and removal of the disputed videos. The filing alleged defamation, tortious interference, and breach of contract.

The complaint concerned videos published in December 2025. Claver alleged that the rector made false statements about business conduct, fund returns, and outside auditing. Those assertions represented the plaintiffs’ allegations, not established findings. Rector later sought expedited relief under Washington’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act.

Why the Case Could Continue

Evanson dismissed the claims without prejudice, according to coverage of the order. That status permits Claver to submit an amended complaint. The court set September 23 as the filing deadline. Therefore, the ruling defeats the present complaint but does not guarantee that litigation has finished.

Washington’s statute covers certain civil claims based on protected speech concerning matters of public concern. It also requires reasonable costs and fees for a party that wins an expedited-relief motion. The court found Rector entitled to attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, but reporting does not identify a final amount.

Sampled XRP Reactions Back Rector

Notably, the two supplied X reactions favored Rector, although they cannot measure sentiment across the entire XRP community. Hodler (2018x) took a wider view. Hodler2018x said the “entire crypto space needs to grow up,” criticizing clickbait, false claims, and copied content.

Moonchaser2020 gave the rector more direct support. The account argued that criticism over price calls should not have become a $30 million federal fight. It also congratulated Rector and welcomed relief for his family. That post framed the ruling as protected speech, matching Rector’s description of the order.

What the Ruling Does Not Decide

Meanwhile, the order concerns speech, pleaded claims, and Washington’s dismissal process. It does not decide XRP’s value, Ripple’s conduct, or activity on the XRP Ledger. Nothing in the reviewed case materials links the ruling directly to token supply, network use, exchange flows, or market pricing.

The sampled responses also show two distinct concerns among commenters. One focused on free expression and opposition to the lawsuit. The other called for stronger accuracy standards from crypto creators generally. Both reactions leaned toward Rector, but neither establishes broad community consensus.

Claver’s next decision will determine the immediate legal path. An amended complaint could restart the argument over the statements and legal claims. If no amendment arrives by the deadline, the court may move toward closure while resolving the recoverable fee amount.

Related: Justin Doochin on How BTC Inc Balances Bitcoin Community and Institutions