Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has compared a new Connecticut firearms lawsuit with Ripple’s former SEC battle, arguing that both disputes raise questions about businesses determining whether their conduct complies with unclear regulatory standards. Summary David Schwartz compared Connecticut’s Glock dispute with Ripple’s former SEC battle over regulatory clarity concerns. Glock filed its federal lawsuit September 21, seeking relief before Connecticut’s October 1 law starts. Judge Kari Dooley scheduled a federal September 29 hearing on Glock’s emergency preliminary injunction request. Connecticut’s attorney general says the convertible-pistol law is lawful and will be defended in court. Ripple and the SEC ended their appeals in August 2025, leaving the final judgment intact. Schwartz said on Sept. 23 that the situation described in the Glock litigation appeared “grossly unfair,” after attorney Kostas Moros drew attention to Glock’s claim that Connecticut officials had not clearly told the manufacturer whether redesigned pistols comply with a law taking effect Oct. 1. Schwartz added: “Ask me how I know.” His comparison refers to Ripple’s years-long dispute with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, but the Connecticut case does not involve cryptocurrency, securities law or the SEC. No court has found that Connecticut officials used the same legal strategy as the federal securities regulator; Schwartz’s comments describe his personal interpretation of the two disputes. Ripple veteran sees familiar uncertainty in Glock case Glock filed Glock, Inc. v. Griffin et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on Sept. 21, naming Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin and state prosecutors responsible for enforcing the law. The company brought the case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and challenged Connecticut’s new restrictions on “convertible pistols.” The manufacturer has asked the court for emergency relief before the statute becomes effective. Judge Kari A. Dooley ordered Glock to serve the complaint and injunction papers by noon Sept. 24, gave defendants until 5 p.m. Sept. 28 to respond, and scheduled a hearing for 9:30 a.m. Sept. 29 in Bridgeport. Connecticut Public Act 26-41 makes it a Class D felony to knowingly import, advertise, sell, offer or expose for sale certain newly manufactured “convertible pistols” beginning Oct. 1. The statute defines the category around semiautomatic pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily altered and converted into machine guns using a pistol converter. Glock contends its redesigned Slimline, V Series and Gen 6 handguns should fall outside that definition because the company says they were engineered to resist illegal conversion devices. Its lawsuit seeks a declaration covering those products or, alternatively, relief against enforcement if the court finds the statutory terms too vague. The claims remain allegations and have not been decided. Schwartz focused on the uncertainty Glock says it faces before the criminal provision becomes enforceable. In his post, he characterized a system where a company “cannot possibly know whether you are complying with the law” as unfair, then connected that complaint to his experience during Ripple’s litigation. When another X user asked how he knew such tactics, Schwartz replied, “A little birdie told me,” while pointing readers back to the SEC v. Ripple dispute. Connecticut rejects Glock’s challenge to new law Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has taken the opposite position on the statute. Tong said on Sept. 21 that Connecticut’s gun laws are “lawful and lifesaving” and that his office would “aggressively defend” the state against the lawsuit. His statement did not address Schwartz or the Ripple comparison. The law emerged from H.B. 5043, which Gov. Ned Lamont signed in May. Connecticut’s legislative analysis says the measure applies to newly manufactured convertible pistols and provides a maximum five-year prison term, a fine of up to $5,000, or both for a Class D felony conviction. A second federal challenge arrived the same day as Glock’s filing. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Shadow Systems and Blue Trail Range Corporation filed NSSF et al. v. Griffin et al., arguing that the same restrictions violate the Second Amendment. NSSF has described the law as an unconstitutional ban on widely sold striker-fired handguns, a characterization Connecticut disputes. The federal court calendar currently lists both cases for motion hearings at 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 29 before Judge Dooley. Schwartz ties dispute back to Ripple’s SEC history Ripple’s regulatory fight began in December 2020 when the SEC alleged that Ripple Labs, Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen conducted more than $1.3 billion in unregistered XRP securities offerings. Throughout the case, Ripple disputed the agency’s interpretation of XRP transactions and argued that market participants lacked clear notice about how federal securities law applied to digital assets. Judge Analisa Torres issued a split ruling in July 2023. She found that Ripple’s institutional XRP sales constituted investment contracts under the circumstances presented, while programmatic exchange sales and certain other distributions did not satisfy the same test. Schwartz has continued discussing the distinction since leaving Ripple’s full-time CTO role. As previously reported, Schwartz argued that the SEC repeatedly described XRP itself as a security during the litigation, while former SEC officials have said the legal case ultimately concerned Ripple’s transactions and offers rather than an abstract classification of the token. Ripple officially identifies Schwartz as CTO Emeritus and an XRP Ledger co-creator. The original SEC case no longer remains active. The SEC announced on Aug. 7, 2025 that both sides had agreed to dismiss their appeals, ending the Commission’s civil enforcement action. The district court’s final judgment stayed in force. That judgment requires Ripple to pay a $125.035 million civil penalty and subjects it to an injunction concerning future violations of the Securities Act’s registration provisions. The SEC’s own litigation release confirms that dismissal of the appeals did not erase those terms. In related coverage, Ripple and the SEC formally ended their appellate fight in August 2025 after nearly five years of litigation. Regulatory clarity remains part of Ripple’s policy message Schwartz’s latest comment arrives while Ripple continues calling for clearer statutory rules governing digital assets in the U.S. After the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act on Sept. 15, Ripple said the legislation had offered Congress a chance to create “clear, predictable rules of the road.” The company argued that XRP’s existing legal position was not changed by the Senate vote. Recent comments from Schwartz have kept the old SEC litigation in public view. In July, he said the Commission’s original complaint frequently used language describing XRP as the security, while critics of that reading argued the court’s ultimate focus remained on specific offers and sales. As previously reported, the final Ripple judgment preserved restrictions on direct institutional XRP sales while leaving exchange-based transactions outside the court’s securities finding. Ripple executives have separately described how disruptive the case became internally. CEO Brad Garlinghouse said this year that the company seriously considered shutting down after the SEC sued in 2020. Schwartz said outside lawyers at one stage viewed the business as difficult to save, accounts that describe Ripple executives’ recollections and do not establish the SEC’s intent. The Connecticut litigation now has its own immediate procedural timetable. Glock must complete service by Sept. 24, Connecticut’s defendants must file their response to the requested preliminary injunction by Sept. 28, and Judge Dooley is scheduled to hear arguments Sept. 29 before Public Act 26-41 takes effect Oct. 1.
