I just read an interesting ruling by a New York court regarding the Uniswap case — they completely dismissed the class-action lawsuit against the protocol and its creator, Hayden Adams. Judge Catherine Polk Failla closed the case with a ban on re-filing, effectively ending a nearly four-year dispute.

What was the essence of the claims? Investors led by Nessa Risley argued that they lost money on fraudulent tokens traded through Uniswap between April 2021 and April 2022. They demanded accountability from the protocol developers, claiming they facilitated the sale of unregistered securities and allowed large-scale fraud to develop.

But the court did not accept this. The main point the judge found was that there was no evidence that Uniswap had actual knowledge of specific frauds. Complaints received after investor losses do not prove current knowledge. General warnings on social media about scam tokens are also insufficient. Even research showing a high percentage of fraudulent launches does not mean the developers knew about specific tokens at the relevant time.

Another important point — the court did not agree that simply providing a platform constitutes “material assistance” to fraudsters. It was compared to traditional exchanges: creating access to the market, even if dishonest actors are present, is not participation in fraud. The identities of the token issuers remain unknown, and the complaint itself acknowledged that losses were caused by false statements from the issuers themselves.

Regarding consumer protection — nothing was proven either. The court found no materially misleading statements from Uniswap Labs. Blog posts and terms of service warned users about scam tokens. The information was accessible to everyone, not just the company.

As for unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs failed to prove that Uniswap profited from these transactions during the period in question. The optional fee switch was never activated, and the interface fee only appeared in October 2023, outside the timeframe of the case.

Hayden Adams posted on X that this is another precedent showing: if you write an open smart contract and it’s used by scammers, the responsibility lies with the scammers, not the developer. Brian Nistler, General Counsel of the Uniswap Foundation, called this another landmark decision for DeFi — federal charges had already been dropped earlier, and now all state claims are dismissed.

Overall, this is a clear statement: creating a decentralized infrastructure by itself does not amount to organizing fraud. Regulatory gaps in DeFi seem better addressed through Congress than through judicial interpretation.