Wow, a federal judge in Manhattan just dismissed a high-profile class action lawsuit against Uniswap Labs and its founder Hayden Adams. The decision was decisive — all remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice and barred from re-filing.

The case lasted nearly four years. Plaintiffs, including Nessa Risley, claimed they lost money trading fraudulent tokens through the Uniswap interface between April 2021 and April 2022. They sought to hold developers accountable for rug pulls and pump-and-dump schemes carried out by third parties. However, the court reached a different conclusion.

The key point: Judge Catherine Polk Failla determined that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Uniswap had actual knowledge of specific frauds. Complaints after losses, general warnings on social media about scam tokens, even research indicating a high proportion of fraudulent launches — all of this was insufficient. The court found no grounds to assert that the company substantially facilitated the fraud.

Even more interesting is the court’s stance regarding the platform itself. Simply providing access to a market is not participation in fraud. The judge drew an analogy with traditional exchanges: creating infrastructure where malicious actors operate does not equate to complicity in their activities. The identities of the token issuers remain unknown, and losses were caused by false statements made by the issuers themselves.

Claims of consumer protection violations also did not succeed. The court noted that Uniswap warned users about risks in blog posts and terms of service. Regarding unjust enrichment — the company did not even activate the optional fee toggle during the period in question.

This is already the third round for the plaintiffs. Initially, in August 2023, the judge dismissed federal securities law claims. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2025 affirmed the decision but remanded the case for reconsideration of claims under state laws. The plaintiffs rephrased their complaint, focusing on conspiracy to commit fraud, negligence, and violations of consumer protection laws in New York, North Carolina, and Idaho. But that didn’t help either.

Judge Failla emphasized in her ruling: despite three opportunities to present valid claims, the plaintiffs failed to articulate plausible allegations. The court also noted that regulatory gaps in decentralized finance are better addressed by Congress rather than through expansive judicial interpretation.

For the New York index of federal court decisions, this sets an important precedent: developers of open protocols are not responsible for third-party activities that use their code. This protects innovation in a space where developers simply do not control user behavior.

Hayden Adams posted on X that the outcome is logical: if you write open-source smart contract code and it’s used by scammers, the scammers are responsible, not the developer. Brian Nistler, General Counsel of the Uniswap Foundation, called this another precedent-setting decision for DeFi — federal charges were previously dropped, and now all state and federal claims have been dismissed as well.

It remains to be seen whether the plaintiff will file another appeal. But after several rounds of amendments and appellate review, the legal space for further action appears quite limited.