A four-year legal battle ended this week when a federal judge ruled that Uniswap cannot be held liable for fraudulent tokens bought and sold on its platform. The decision is seen as a huge win – not just for Uniswap, but for decentralized finance in general.
An event that keeps coming back
The lawsuit had a long and winding road to its conclusion. According to reports, a group of investors led by Nessa Risley first sued Uniswap, its founder Hayden Adams, and venture capital firms Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz, and Union Square Ventures in April 2022, alleging that the platform enabled carpet-pulling and pump-and-dumps that funneled money to them.
🦄 Uniswap wins another case that sets a new legal precedent
TLDR:
If you write open source smart contract code and the code is used by crooks, the crooks are responsible, not the open source developers.Good result, smart https://t.co/ZvfIMGk7TN
— Hayden Adams 🦄 (@haydenzadams) March 2, 2026
Illegal claim
That first lawsuit was dismissed in August 2023, and the decision was later upheld on appeal. The plaintiffs came back a second time and amended their complaint to state consumer protection claims. That attempt also failed.
Manhattan federal judge Kathryn Polk Failla dismissed the case on Monday with regret — meaning the plaintiffs can’t bring the same claims to court again. Reports say that the judge found that the group did not sufficiently demonstrate that Uniswap had no knowledge of or actively assisted in the fraudulent activity.
The distinction drawn by the judge was clear and direct. Creating an environment in which fraud can occur, he said, is not the same as aiding fraud. Reports state that he compared the situation to a bank unwittingly processing transactions for money launderers or a messaging app whose service is used by a drug trafficker. In both cases, the platform isn’t breaking the law—the person abusing it is.
Open source is not a crime
Uniswap Labs founder Hayden Adams responded to X’s ruling, calling it good and reasonable. result. Adams reportedly said that when open source smart contract code is written and fraudsters choose to abuse it, the fraudsters bear the legal responsibility, not the developers who built the tools. This argument was central to Uniswap’s defense throughout the case.
Uniswap is different from traditional exchanges. Anyone can list the token on it without going through the verification process, which is what makes it decentralized. This very openness is what made it dangerous for the plaintiffs. The judge disagreed.
He reportedly wrote that offering simple services that can be used for both legitimate and illegitimate purposes does not make the platform responsible for how bad actors choose to use those services.
Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView
Editing process because bitcoinist is committed to delivering thoroughly researched, accurate and unbiased content. We adhere to strict sourcing standards and every page is rigorously reviewed by a team of top technology experts and experienced editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance and value of our content to our readers.
