SEC's Focus On DeFi Is Made Clear Through Its Suit Against LBRY, Inc.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.05.21
On March 29, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against LBRY, Inc., a decentralized blockchain company that operates a content sharing application. The SEC alleges that starting in 2016 and continuing through the present, LBRY sold more than 13 million digital asset securities called LBRY Credits to investors (some in the U.S.) in exchange for U.S. dollars, bitcoins, and other consideration. The SEC claims that LBRY Credits constitute investment contracts under the Howey Test, which LBRY failed to register as securities in violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. This appears to be the first Section 5 case against an issuer of a token on a decentralized platform, signaling the SEC’s focus on decentralized finance, or DeFi.
In its complaint, the SEC claims that LBRY Credits are nothing more than investment contracts: individuals and entities purchased LBRY Credits for U.S. dollars, bitcoins, and other consideration; LBRY Credit holders invested in a common enterprise; and LBRY Credit holders expected a profit from LBRY’s efforts. The SEC also claims that the LBRY Network may not be as decentralized as LBRY claims, arguing that:
- LBRY maintains managerial and entrepreneurial control over the LBRY Network;
- LBRY continues to control its software code for its applications and the protocol;
- LBRY continues to unilaterally make strategic and managerial decisions about the future of the LBRY Network; and
- LBRY continues to unilaterally decide how to allocate the capital and resources it has pooled from investors to grow the Network.
Shortly after the SEC filed its complaint, LBRY launched a website called “Help LBRY Save Crypto” in which it tells its side of the story. LBRY counters the SEC’s “no decentralization” claims, stating that “even if LBRY, Inc., is shut down by the SEC as a result of this litigation, the LBRY network will continue to function and grow through the effort of the distributed LBRY community.”
Key Takeaways
- The SEC continues enforcement initiatives against what it perceives to be unregistered sales of securities by digital asset companies under the new Biden Administration;
- The relevant sales in this case date back to 2016 which serves as a reminder to the industry of the SEC’s five-year statute of limitations during which it can bring a case against those that it deems to have violated its rules or regulations; and
- The SEC may seek to extend its statute of limitations to bring cases such as this one by, as it does in this case, claiming that the various offerings throughout a prolonged period of time are part of “one continuous (or in the alternative, an integrated) offering of securities.”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.17.25
Will the Supreme Court review the Ninth Circuit’s unique Server Test for online copyright infringement? After the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the Server Test, a photographer and copyright owner has requested certiorari. Petitioner-Plaintiff, Elliot McGucken, is a landscape photographer. Respondent-Defendant, Valnet, Inc., is the owner of a travel website located at “www.thetravel.com.” McGucken sued Valnet for copyright infringement when Valnet embedded on its site a number of links to McGucken’s Instagram posts. The district court, bound by the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Perfect 10, granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the Server Test foreclosed McGucken’s direct infringement claim as a matter of law, because Valnet linked to the images and did not store them on its own servers. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in a panel decision. McGucken now requests the Supreme Court to review the validity of the Server Test, which is unique to the Ninth Circuit.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.15.25
Is Section 230 Going to Change? The FTC, DOJ and FCC Signal Significant Change for Online Businesses
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.14.25
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.10.25
Hikma and Amici Curiae Ask Supreme Court to Revisit Induced Infringement by Generic “Skinny Labels”