The pump.fun class action once reached past the app. In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs sued companies from the Solana ecosystem itself, Solana Labs and the Solana Foundation, alongside the platform's operator and its founders, and they asked the court for more than money. Beyond damages, the complaint requested a court-appointed receiver that would take control of several of these companies. Then, on August 31, 2026, the court dismissed every claim against those Solana defendants, with prejudice. The reasoning matters more than the headline if you hold SOL or a pump.fun token: why the plaintiffs reached for the infrastructure, what they asked for, and why that branch failed at the pleading stage.
Why the chain and its backers were pulled in
The case is Aguilar v. Baton Corporation Ltd., d/b/a Pump.fun. It was filed in the Southern District of New York in early 2025 and assigned to Judge Colleen McMahon. It began as a securities-fraud complaint against the platform and its founders, then expanded. A consolidated amended complaint added a group of Solana-ecosystem defendants, Solana Labs and the Solana Foundation, along with several of their executives, and reporting on the expansion put it plainly: Solana was named in a pump.fun racketeering class action (source: CoinGeek on the RICO class action). Earlier pleadings had also listed Jito Labs and the Jito Foundation, but those were voluntarily dismissed by stipulation in September 2025, before the operative complaint, so the infrastructure fight had already narrowed to the Solana companies (source: CourtListener docket).
The plaintiffs' theory, an allegation throughout, was that the platform and these companies jointly ran what the complaint called the "Pump.fun Casino", an operation it alleged amounted to illegal gambling and money transmission, profiting from trading volume through platform fees, validator tips, and demand for SOL. Who exactly was sued, including the platform's founders, is set out in the who-gets-sued explainer, and the wider class action is walked through in the pump.fun lawsuits explainer. This article stays on one branch: the infrastructure defendants, what was asked of them, and how it ended.
What the plaintiffs asked of the infrastructure defendants
The remedy is what made this branch unusual. Beyond compensatory and treble damages under RICO, the plaintiffs sought disgorgement and a constructive trust over what the complaint described as enterprise-derived proceeds. That was said to include platform fees, validator tips, and SOL-denominated appreciation. They also sought rescission of pump.fun token transactions and permanent injunctions. Most striking, the complaint requested the appointment of a federal equity receiver over Pump.fun, Solana Labs, and Jito Labs (source: Wolf Popper LLP on the amended complaint). A receiver of that kind would take custody and control of the companies' assets, digital wallets, validator keys, and source-code repositories, and could maintain or wind down their operations while the case ran.
That is a remedy aimed at control of the companies themselves, not only their bank balances, which is why it reached past an ordinary damages claim. It was, throughout, what the plaintiffs were asking a court to do, not something a court had ordered.
Why the court dismissed the Solana defendants
On August 31, 2026, Judge McMahon granted the motions to dismiss in part. She held that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead a RICO claim against the Solana defendants, and dismissed every claim against Solana Labs, the Solana Foundation, and their executives, with prejudice (source: Opinion and Order, Aguilar v. Baton). The court also dismissed the Securities Act claims and the unjust-enrichment claim, finding the benefits the Solana companies were alleged to have received too attenuated to support the latter.
What survived is far narrower than the original theory. The substantive RICO and RICO-conspiracy claims remain, but only as asserted by two of the three plaintiffs, and only against the operator, Baton Corporation Ltd., and its three founders. The receiver, the constructive trust, and the rest of the aggressive equitable relief have lost their target among the Solana companies, because those defendants are out of the case. Whether any of these tokens is a security is a separate question, handled in the is-PUMP-a-security explainer.
What it means if you hold SOL or a pump.fun token
Read from a holder's side, the outcome matters as much as the original claim did. A lawsuit that reached the chain's backers and asked for control over them was, briefly, a claim about the base layer you are exposed to, one that swept in far more than a single coin. The court tested that theory at the pleading stage and rejected it as to the Solana companies, with prejudice, so the structural exposure the complaint alleged failed at that stage. What remains is a narrower fight against the platform's operator and its founders over how pump.fun itself ran.
That leaves open whether pump.fun's own conduct was lawful, and none of this is legal or financial advice. If you are gauging your own exposure, the token itself is explained in the what-is-PUMP explainer, and the routes to holding it are laid out in the how-to-buy explainer. This is a summary of what the complaint asked for and why the infrastructure defendants were dismissed, well short of a prediction of how the rest of the case will end.
If you already hold the token or are weighing an entry, PUMP trades as the PUMP/USDT pair on BloFin, and what a given position costs to open and hold is set out on the fee schedule.
Where PUMP trading fits
The surviving case turns on the platform's operator and its founders, while the token that carries the pump.fun name has a market of its own. For readers who want to act on their own view of PUMP after reading how the infrastructure branch ended, BloFin lists the token for both spot and perpetual trading, so the position and the leverage are yours to size.
Looking to trade PUMP? To get started, you'll need to first create a BloFin account, fund your account with cryptocurrency, and navigate to the PUMP/USDT Spot trading page or PUMPUSDT Perpetual page.
Frequently asked questions
Is Solana being sued over pump.fun?
It was. Solana Labs, the Solana Foundation, and several of their executives were named as defendants in the consolidated complaint of the pump.fun class action. On August 31, 2026, the court dismissed every claim against them, with prejudice, so they are no longer defendants in the case.
What were the Solana defendants accused of?
The complaint alleged that they jointly operated, with pump.fun, what it characterized as an illegal gambling and money-transmission enterprise, profiting from trading volume through platform fees, validator tips, and demand for SOL. The court found the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded those claims and dismissed them.
What happened to the request for a federal equity receiver?
It was a request in the complaint, never an order. The plaintiffs asked the court to appoint a receiver over Pump.fun, Solana Labs, and Jito Labs. Jito was dropped by stipulation in 2025, and the Solana companies were dismissed in 2026, so that remedy no longer has a target among the infrastructure defendants.
Does this mean SOL or a pump.fun token is safe to hold?
No one can tell you that, and this is not advice. The narrow point is that the claim reaching the Solana infrastructure was dismissed with prejudice, so that particular structural risk did not survive the motion to dismiss. A separate RICO case against the operator and its founders continues.
Is this the same as the securities lawsuit?
The securities claims were a separate part of the same case, asserted against the platform's operator and its founders alone, and the court dismissed those claims too in the same August 31, 2026 opinion. Whether any pump.fun token is a security is covered in the is-PUMP-a-security explainer.
Researched and written by the BloFin Academy editorial team with AI-assisted drafting. Case details are taken from the public court docket and the court's own opinion, and from the filing firm's description of its complaint. The claims described were allegations; the court dismissed the claims against the Solana defendants, and no defendant has been found liable. All facts independently verified against cited documentation current as of September 2026.
This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not financial, investment, trading, or legal advice. The lawsuit described is ongoing against the remaining defendants and its surviving claims are unproven; nothing here states that any defendant is liable. Do your own research and consult a qualified professional for advice on your situation.