David Schwartz Links Glock Lawsuit to Ripple’s Fight for Clear Rules

Summary

• David Schwartz compared Glock’s uncertainty over Connecticut’s handgun rules with Ripple’s experience seeking clear guidance during its lengthy SEC case.
• Ripple’s SEC case ended in 2025, leaving a $125 million penalty and restrictions on future unregistered institutional XRP sales intact.
• Brad Garlinghouse supports the Clarity Act but argues cryptocurrency adoption can advance despite congressional delays and unresolved American regulatory questions.

 

Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz sees a familiar problem in Glock’s lawsuit against Connecticut: a company seeking to comply with rules it cannot interpret confidently. According to Schwartz, authorities act unfairly when businesses cannot determine whether their products meet legal requirements.

His comments followed attorney Kostas Moros’s account of Glock’s challenge to a state handgun law. Connecticut will restrict sales of certain pistols that people can readily convert into machine guns. Glock argues that its redesigned models resist conversion, but state officials have not clarified whether those models qualify for sale.

That unanswered question prompted Schwartz to recall Ripple’s legal battle with the SEC. He called the situation “grossly unfair” and pointed readers to an account of Ripple’s case when asked why it sounded familiar.

Also Read: XRP Reclaims $100 Billion Market Cap as ETF Inflows and Whale Activity Increases

Why the Connecticut Case Reminded Schwartz of Ripple

Ripple’s dispute centered partly on whether the company had adequate notice that its XRP sales violated securities law. The SEC sued Ripple in 2020, alleging that it raised more than $1.3 billion through unregistered securities offerings.

A federal court later found that certain institutional XRP sales violated registration requirements and imposed a $125 million penalty. Both sides dropped their appeals in 2025, leaving that judgment in place.

Schwartz drew a parallel between the uncertainty the companies described, although the lawsuits concern different products and laws. Glock seeks a ruling on whether Connecticut’s restrictions cover its newer pistols or, alternatively, whether the law lacks sufficient clarity.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has defended the restrictions as a public safety measure. The court has not decided whether Glock’s disputed models fall under the ban.

Garlinghouse Says Crypto Adoption Can Outlast Legislative Delays

The question of clear rules also shapes Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse’s view of the stalled Clarity Act. Recently speaking in Kansas City, Garlinghouse supported the legislation but argued that useful technology can attract users without congressional approval.

According to Garlinghouse, faster and more efficient services give cryptocurrency a reason to gain adoption. However, he warned that delayed rules could leave the United States behind jurisdictions offering businesses clearer guidance.

The Clarity Act failed to advance in a Senate procedural vote amid disagreements that included concerns about President Donald Trump’s cryptocurrency interests. Its setback leaves unresolved the broader regulatory questions Garlinghouse wants Congress to address.

Schwartz’s comparison shows why clarity matters when a company must decide what it can legally sell. Garlinghouse’s argument addresses what happens while those questions remain unresolved: adoption may proceed, but businesses still need dependable rules.

Also Read: Canada’s Six Largest Banks Explore Shared Tokenized Deposit System

The post David Schwartz Links Glock Lawsuit to Ripple’s Fight for Clear Rules appeared first on 36Crypto.