Yes, the company behind pump.fun is being sued, and it has been in the news since early 2025. There is a large investor lawsuit against it in a New York federal court. If you have only seen the headlines, they can be confusing, because some say the case is huge while others say big parts of it got thrown out, and both of those can be true at the same time.
The thing to hold onto is one simple line: an accusation differs from a decision. A lawsuit is a set of accusations, and an early ruling on it mostly decides which of those accusations may keep going, while deciding who is ultimately right comes much later. Once you keep those two ideas apart, the headlines stop fighting each other.
The record below covers who is suing, what they claim pump.fun did, how the case grew over time, and what a judge actually decided in the most recent ruling. Treat it as a snapshot of where things stand as of the date at the top, written for information only and separate from legal advice or any prediction of the outcome.
The lawsuit in plain terms
The case is a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A class action is one lawsuit brought by a few lead plaintiffs on behalf of a much larger group who say they were harmed the same way, here investors who lost money on coins launched through pump.fun. The defendant is Baton Corporation Ltd., the company that operates pump.fun, along with its three co-founders, the people behind the platform in who owns pump.fun.
Several investor complaints were filed and then combined into one consolidated case in front of a single judge, Colleen McMahon. The first complaint landed on January 30, 2025 (source: Decrypt). A lawsuit like this sits alongside the everyday product risks covered in the pump.fun risks overview.
What the plaintiffs allege
Everything in this section is an accusation, which is exactly what the word allege signals. When the case began, the core claim was about securities law. The investors said that pump.fun sold unregistered securities and exposed buyers to high risk while skipping the protections that registered offerings carry.
Over the next year the case grew, and after the complaints were consolidated, the plaintiffs filed an expanded version in July 2025 that added a second, broader theory. They accused the defendants of running a coordinated scheme, which they nicknamed the Pump Enterprise, under a law called RICO. RICO is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, written to go after organized criminal enterprises. In plain terms, the plaintiffs claimed insiders were quietly given priority access to buy new coins first, at the lowest prices, while ordinary users were funneled in later at higher prices and left holding the losses (source: Justia).
That expanded version also pulled in more defendants, including Solana Labs and the Solana Foundation and several of their executives, on the theory that the underlying blockchain and its tools made the alleged scheme possible. Why those parties joined the case, and what happened to them, is its own story in the Solana defendants explainer. Note the scope: this is a private lawsuit brought by investors, and it is separate from any government action; regulator activity is tracked in pump.fun regulator actions.
In late 2025 the plaintiffs said a confidential informant had handed them roughly 5,000 internal chat messages, and they used that material to file a further amended complaint in early 2026. That is the version of the case the judge ruled on.
Allegation and ruling: the line that clears up the headlines
A complaint is one side's story, and filing it leaves that story unproven; a company listed as a defendant has yet to be found to have done anything.
Early in a case, before any trial, defendants usually ask the judge to throw the claims out, in a request called a motion to dismiss. Ruling on that request, the judge asks one narrow question and leaves the question of who wins for later: if everything the complaint says were true, would it add up to a valid legal claim? A yes means the claim survives and moves forward, while a claim that falls short is dismissed. This early stage is called the pleading stage.
Two results matter for reading the news, and they pull in opposite directions. A claim that survives a motion to dismiss still falls short of a win or a finding of guilt; it just means the accusation is detailed enough to continue. When a claim is dismissed with prejudice, it is thrown out for good and barred from being refiled in that case. So a single ruling can let one accusation move ahead while permanently ending others, which is exactly why two honest headlines about the same day can sound opposite.
Say you see two posts about the same court date. One says a judge let a racketeering case against pump.fun go forward, while the other says a judge threw out the securities case against pump.fun. Both are describing the very same ruling, and both are accurate: the first points to a claim that survived, the second to claims that were dismissed. Either way, that ruling left the question of winning or losing for another day, so reading the posts as a scoreboard is the mistake, and reading each as one claim moving or ending is the fix.
What the judge actually decided
On August 31, 2026, Judge McMahon ruled on the motions to dismiss and split the decision (source: CourtListener). What that ruling did, kept to what it actually says, breaks down as follows.
The racketeering claims were allowed to move forward, but only in a narrow way. They survive only for two of the lead investors, and only against Baton Corporation and its three founders. Those are the accusations the judge found detailed enough to continue; they are cleared to proceed while remaining accusations well short of a verdict.
At the same time, several parts of the case were dismissed. The judge dismissed a third lead investor's claims and dismissed the unregistered-securities claims as well. The judge also threw out all of the claims against the Solana parties, so Solana Labs, the Solana Foundation, and their executives are out of the case (source: Protos). The judge focused on the two specific coins the lead investors had actually bought and found that, as described in the complaint, they fell outside the definition of investment contracts under the Supreme Court's long-standing Howey test, because the complaint failed to show a common enterprise. Claims about the other coins were dismissed because the lead investors had skipped buying those coins themselves and so lacked standing to sue over them, and a separate unjust-enrichment claim went the same way. Most of these dismissals were with prejudice, meaning they are barred from being refiled in this case; the exception is the other-coin claims, dismissed without prejudice because they turned on standing more than the merits, which leaves them open to a properly positioned plaintiff.
Read carefully, the securities dismissal is narrow, deciding only those particular coins as they were pleaded in this case. It stops well short of a general ruling on whether pump.fun coins are securities, and that broader, still-contested question is its own topic in are pump.fun coins securities. The separate question of whether pump.fun's own PUMP token is a security is covered in is the PUMP token a security.
Where the PUMP token trades
Separate from the coins launched on the platform, pump.fun has its own token, PUMP, and lawsuits like this one are among the things a trader weighs before taking a position in it. On BloFin, PUMP trades against USDT as a spot pair, PUMP/USDT, and as a perpetual, the PUMPUSDT Perpetual, which lets a trader take a long or short position on the price with margin while leaving the token itself in someone else's hands.
The funding rate and the cost of carrying a perpetual position are set out on BloFin's fee page, the quickest way to see what a PUMPUSDT position is charging right now.
What this means for you as a user
A live lawsuit against a platform is a real signal, but it stays a signal well short of a verdict. As of this writing, a court has let a narrow racketeering accusation proceed against pump.fun's operator and its founders and has permanently dismissed the securities and several other claims. That still leaves the outcome open, and this guide sticks to the record while stopping short of predicting it. If you want to understand what a bad outcome for the company could look like, that is mapped out in the lawsuit downside path, and the broader question of who can be on the hook when a coin blows up is covered in who gets sued when a pump.fun coin collapses.
The practical habit is the one from the top of this page: when you see a new headline, ask whether it describes an accusation or a decision, and check the date, because the status keeps changing. Keep the base rate in view as well, since a lawsuit does little to change how often these coins fail on their own. The high failure rate is well documented, with "the vast majority of tokens failing to achieve the necessary traction and market capitalization" to go the distance (source: Wikipedia). The lawsuit is one risk to weigh on top of that ordinary one, and it works as an addition to that risk more than a replacement for it.
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 pump.fun being sued right now?
Yes. The company that operates pump.fun, Baton Corporation, and its three founders are defendants in a consolidated investor class action in the Southern District of New York. The case began in January 2025 and is still active as of this writing, though parts of it have been dismissed. Because litigation moves, check the date on any report you read.
Did pump.fun lose the lawsuit, or did the case get thrown out?
Neither, exactly. On August 31, 2026 a judge let a narrow racketeering claim move forward against the company and its founders while dismissing the unregistered-securities claims, the claims against the Solana parties, and an unjust-enrichment claim. Letting a claim proceed is not a loss for the plaintiffs or a win, and dismissing other claims is not a full clearing of the company. The case continues on the narrower ground.
What does the lawsuit say pump.fun did?
The plaintiffs allege that pump.fun sold unregistered securities and, in a broader theory, that the company ran a coordinated scheme giving insiders priority access to buy new coins first while ordinary users were pushed in later at higher prices. These are accusations in a complaint. A company being accused of something is not the same as a court finding it did that thing.
Does the ruling settle whether pump.fun coins are securities?
No. The August 2026 ruling looked at two specific coins the named investors had bought and found they were not investment contracts as the complaint described them, because it did not show a common enterprise. That is a narrow decision about those coins in this case. Whether pump.fun coins in general are securities is a separate, still-contested legal question.
Should the lawsuit change whether I use pump.fun?
That is your decision, and this is not advice. What the record gives you is context: there is a real, active lawsuit, a court has allowed a narrow racketeering claim to proceed and dismissed others, and none of it predicts the outcome. Weigh it alongside the ordinary risk that most of these coins lose their value quickly, and check the current status before relying on any single headline.
Researched and written by the BloFin Academy editorial team with AI-assisted drafting. The litigation facts here are drawn from the public court record in Aguilar v. Baton Corporation Ltd. (S.D.N.Y., No. 1:25-cv-00880), including the court's own orders, reviewed on September 6, 2026, with reporting and reference material used for context. All facts independently verified against the cited court record and reporting, current as of September 2026. Litigation status changes as a case moves, so confirm the current record before relying on any single detail.
This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not financial, investment, trading, or legal advice, and it is not a prediction of any case outcome. Memecoins are extremely high-risk and most lose all their value quickly. Court cases change often, so verify current details against the primary record before acting. Do your own research and never risk funds you cannot afford to lose.